"... If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal fakery. What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS. ..."
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
Thanks sleeply,
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico.
Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tête-à-tête with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/slLCjLcgqbc
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
"... Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral. ..."
Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the
platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral.
" Rep. Ratliffe suggested Monday that the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella committed perjury by making false statements in his
written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is hiding evidence of Ciaramella's crimes to protect him from criminal investigations,"
read the tweet made by by now-banned @surfermom77, which describes herself as living in California and a "100% Trump supporter."
Ciaramella has been outed in several outlets as the 'anonymous' CIA official whose whistleblower complaint over a July 25 phone call
between Trump and with his Ukrainian counterpart is at the heart of Congressional impeachment proceedings.
Trump retweeted the post around midnight Friday. By Saturday morning, it was no longer visible in his Twitter feed.
When contacted by The Guardian 's Lois Beckett for explanation, Twitter blamed an "outage with one of our systems."
Some people reported earlier today that someone had deleted the alleged-whistleblower's name-retweet from Trump's timeline.
Others of us still see *that tweet* on Trump's timeline. When asked for clarification, Twitter said this:
https://t.co/Rftkg3nbus https://t.co/XREAvvxjhf
By Sunday morning, the tweet had been restored to Trump's timeline - however hours later the user, @Surfermom77, was banned from
the platform .
Running cover for Twitter is the Washington Post , which claims " The account shows some indications of automation , including
an unusually high amount of activity and profile pictures featuring stock images from the internet."
Surfermom77 has displayed some hallmarks of a Twitter bot, an automated account. A recent profile picture on the account, for
instance, is a stock photo of a woman in business attire that is available for use online.
Surfermom77 has also tweeted far more than typical users, more than 170,000 times since the account was activated in 2013.
Surfermom77 has posted, on average, 72 tweets a day, according to Nir Hauser, chief technology officer at VineSight, a technology
firm that tracks online misinformation. -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Trump retweeted another Ciaramella reference on Thursday, after the @TrumpWarRoom responded to whistleblower attorney
Mark Zaid's tweet calling for the resignation of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) from the Senate Whistleblower Caucus after she made
"hostile" comments - after she tweeted in November that "Vindictive Vindman is the "whistleblower's" handler (a reference to impeachment
witness Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
"The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok,
former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI attorney Lisa Page."
"... Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen ." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely stifling a yawn over the Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis built for cable news. ..."
"... Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on
late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up
as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen
." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely
stifling a yawn over the
Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis
built for cable news.
Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
Nobody will be impeached for lying about Afghanistan. There will be no intelligence
community whistleblower setting in motion an impeachment inquiry over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In fact, the same Nancy Pelosi who ultimately caved to the Resistance shut
down antiwar Democrats who wanted such hearings into George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But here
John Bolton, an advocate
of preventive presidential war during this very administration, may finally get his wish of
being
greeted as a liberator .
Even as Representative Adam Schiff led the drive to impeach Trump, the California Democrat
voted for a defense bill that lavishes the executive branch with money without restraining
presidential war powers. But this seeming inconsistency is practically the point -- the entire
impeachment inquiry was wrapped in hawkish assumptions and rhetoric as liberal Democrats
unthinkingly stumbled into a Cold War 2.0 mindset that few of them this side of Hillary Clinton
would have willingly embraced absent
frequently overhyped Trump-Russia headlines dating back to the 2016 campaign.
No, Trump isn't Jesus Christ being handed
over by Pontius Pilate. His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn't "
perfect
" and neither side of this partisan morality tale has exactly covered itself in glory. Rudy
Giuliani's escapades seem particularly likely to end badly. One need not even necessarily
defend Trump's conduct to oppose an impeachment inquiry largely predicated on threat inflation.
Arm Ukraine, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testified, so they can "fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here." She could have been starring in a Democratic
reboot of Red Dawn decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
There's no question Trump to some extent dangled a White House visit and congressionally
authorized aid to Ukraine before Kyiv in pursuit of the talking point that Joe Biden was under
investigation. The only matters in dispute are how determined the effort was, whether Trump's
motives were at least partially publicly spirited, the degree of the Bidens' shadiness, and why
the aid was ultimately disbursed (Byron York
makes the case that it wasn't necessarily because of the whistleblower).
House Democrats began with a presumption of corrupt intent on all counts and a definition of
foreign election interference elastic enough to include Trump utterances about WikiLeaks and
Hillary's deleted emails but not Ukraine's (smaller, less systematic and arguably less
effective than Russia's) 2016 influence
campaign . And while not all investigations are created equal -- if Hunter Biden's business
dealings are to be probed, it should not be as a favor to any president -- the impeachment
inquiry itself is an investigation of a political rival, who was also investigated during his
previous campaign .
If shortcuts were taken in the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, the origins of
Trump-Ukraine resemble a template for undermining any seriously antiwar or civil libertarian
president. Trump is not that president himself, of course -- his acquiescence to the Beltway
blob on lethal military aid is precisely what increased his leverage over Ukraine -- but some
plausible and even the
occasional Republican could be. Trump's mild rhetorical dissents on foreign policy are
clearly a factor in why he has reason to be suspicious of his own subordinates (it's also why
it is disingenuous to suggest that replacing Trump with Mike Pence is no different than
replacing Bill Clinton with ideologically identical Al Gore or that people who have worked for
Bush, Cheney or John McCain
would have no reason to oppose Trump).
Many Democrats sincerely believed they were impeaching Trump for the least of his crimes,
like Al Capone and tax evasion, and that Robert Mueller let him escape last time. They are also
making a case against Trump's ability to separate personal and national interests in a way that
speaks to his fitness for the office, with Ukraine merely being their specific example. But in
doing so, they are also ratifying a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has failed the
American people, and that's bigger than any one president.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
"... ...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
by Scott | Dec 27, 2019
| Interviews Lyle J.
Goldstein talks about the need for Russia and Ukraine to get along better, and in general for
Europe to handle more of its military and foreign affairs without the involvement of the U.S.
Much has been made in certain American circles of supposed Russian aggression in Crimea and
Syria, two major pillars of the narrative that Russia is a dangerous enemy that must be met
with strength. But these claims present a very slanted narrative, and are mostly used by those
who want to keep the U.S. military involved in policing the entire world.
That makes default identity politics a "double or nothing" bet. If it's political
successful, it's dragged further and further towards entrenched minority rule by members of the
dominant racial or religous group, and typically towards some form of personal dictatorship. If
it's unsuccessful, the divisions it creates risks a reversal of the previous order. Instead of
being accepted as one element of a diverse community, the formerly dominant group becomes the
object of hostility and derision. The signs of that are certainly evident, particularly in
relation to the culture wars around religion.
Alex SL 12.27.19 at 10:32 am
I am not really sure where a formerly dominant group has
ever become the object of hostility and derision, except maybe when colonial powers were
expulsed? It seems the formerly dominant religions and the "real XYZians" are still treated
with instinctive deference everywhere, even in societies that are now officially secular or
multi-cultural, and regardless of how terrible their dominance was before it was broken.
...It is true that there is now orientation away from tolerance because tolerance depends on
dominance.
Another way to look at this is that the more heated battles in identity politics (broadly
defined) are occurring now because the dominant group is having difficulty with the shift
from noblesse oblige 'granting' of equality to others to the insistence by these others on
complete and total equality.
To oversimplify, when people in whatever oppressed identity group come to ask themselves
'why can't I be on a completely equal footing with those who do well/benefit from, etc. the
current system?' they tend to lose patience with noblesse oblige, and are unwilling to behave
with deference. Deference might seem too much like internalizing one's inferiority or the
rightness of someone else's dominance.. This means that the groups are more likely to demand
things from others rather than wait to receive them.
These things are necessary for full social equality but there will be a lot of hostility
among some within dominant groups, and you're now seeing people commit to whatever version of
social hierarchy they think works best for them. They ignore or are blind to whatever
versions they'd be screwed by. They tend to make common cause on the naturalness of that
social hierarchy, and the importance of social hierarchy generally.
This is one reason why affinities between oppressed identity groups aren't merely
strategic. Having recognized the legitimacy of this type of demand for full equality for
themselves, people with certain identities are probably more likely to recognize it for
others. Certain subcultures within oppressed group develop a set of standard moral
responses–and these types of demands for full equality for others will seem par for the
course. They'll commit themselves to meeting them even for groups whose political interests
aren't clearly aligned with their own. Often though, the political interests are broadly
aligned but this process does create moral affinities, and general commitments to
egalitarianism that the far right ridicules but which follow logically from a broad
commitment for social equality.
Even so, there are fights among groups struggling for different types of social equality.
Sometimes they are actually in one another's way or are viewed as competition for
resources. Sometimes the concern seems more symbolic and maybe motivated by worries that
there isn't enough equality to go around.
The interesting consequence is maybe the only power some people making claims for equality
have is the power of moral suasion. They are depending on the broader acceptance of social
equality, and the logical extension to themselves. So naturally a backlash tries to undermine
their moral standing.
Peter Dorman 12.27.19 at 6:57 pm (no link)
The dynamic JQ describes does occur often, but it is not the whole story. I think two
distinctions can help in separating where it works from where it doesn't.
The first is between symbolic and concrete relative positioning. JQ is describing a realm
in which hierarchies are matters of symbolic exchange: do I relate to you as my inferior,
equal or superior? A lot of social interaction is like this. But there are also concrete
hierarchies in which people exercise power over others or gain relative advantage
irrespective of how their actions are displayed symbolically. In its pure form, for instance,
institutional racism is a hierarchy that is not visible at the individual level but shows up
through the structural dynamics of the institutions people are embedded in. I think of the
interaction between racial segregation in housing, unequal access to credit and the financing
of public schools through local property taxes as an example of this. No single individual
has to be racist in outlook or intent for the system as a whole to reproduce generation after
generation of extreme injustice.
The second is between zero-sum and positive-sum redistributions. Some inequalities are
largely zero-sum, in the sense that the benefits to those on the top are due to the
deprivations of those on the bottom. An example is the gender division of labor in housework,
where more chores for you means more freedom from them for me and vice versa. The Marxist
view of profit works that way too (but not necessarily other views). And then there are
inequalities in which the benefits of the better off group don't depend on the deprivation of
others, such as the risk of being arbitrarily abused or killed by the police. I'm white and
less likely to experience this abuse than someone who isn't, but ending this abuse for them
doesn't put me at any greater risk.
I think identity politics has been excessively divisive (more precise: has engendered
surplus divisiveness) because of the blurring of these two distinctions. Contests over
symbolic status, as JQ points out, have an inherent zero sum aspect, especially as we move to
the meta level of who should have the right to award respect in the first place. To some
extent, these contests are an unavoidable part of social change, and we just have to roll
with them. Unfortunately though, symbolic disputes have tended to crowd out concrete ones,
where it is often possible to find (ahem) Pareto improvements.
Meanwhile, there is very little awareness of the difference between zero and positive sum
situations, as shown by the tendency to call all relative advantages "privilege". A privilege
is an unjust, unearned benefit, typically based on the exclusion of others. (Membership has
its privileges because nonmembers don't get them.) Private equity billionaires who profit
from exorbitant surprise medical bills that bankrupt ordinary people drip with privilege. But
heterosexual couples who benefit from marriage laws did not gain at the expense of non-hetero
couples that were excluded, and changing the laws to benefit the latter does not harm the
former (except perhaps in the world of symbolic hierarchies).
We are awash in sloppy thinking about difference and hierarchy. (There's a lot more than
what I've brought up here.) Why we're in this mess is an interesting question.
I'm not sure that identity politics works this way.
This is the way identity politics would work if it was really a sort of philosophical
argument about the merits of this or that identity.
But what I see is more a sort of tribalism, where for example here in Italy many conservative
parties (especially the Lega) are big on how Italy is a Christian (catholic) country and
Muslim immigrants are going to destroy our culture, but then when the Pope says we should
welcome immigrants they say he should mind his own business, that is not what you would
expect from a firebrand catholic.
the idea of tolerance implies the existence of a dominant group that does the
tolerating
I'm not certain this is true; the history of religious tolerance seems to feature many
cases where no group was a majority, and "we'll argue but not fight, and the government won't
take sides" was designed to be the best available system when everyone was a minority. I'd
say a very key feature of US politics since the 1960's is that the elite have been
increasingly unwilling to tolerate, or provide equal protection of the law to, those who
disagree with them–so principles like "free speech doesn't include malicious
falsehoods" or "the government doesn't take sides between conceptions of the good" only last
until they would protect a previously-normative group that the elite has turned on.
I also think you are missing a key point in the discussion of deference: a normative
identity creates both a Schelling point and some incentive to assimilate, and so builds its
own majority; think of "white" identity in the US.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been
important to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised
two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity
groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic
identity.
You quote from this guy, and others have written the same thing (e.g. Mark [spit] Lilla).
Their argument, simply put, is that "identity politics" is a fracturing of society into
smaller groups who don't/won't unite.
Having/continually constructing/renewing identities is an inescapable part of being human.
The issue is: what is to constitute the most salient identity? What bundle of markers are to
make up being "American" or "British" or "European"? These things are always contested, but
the pace of change is usually slow. We live in a time when the question is unusually
prominent, so more heavily contested. If, as Chetan says, lots of groups just want to be
"American", then by that want they change "American-ness". If they can't agree on some new
definition, then the US fractures.
CNN blasted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Friday over contradictory stances regarding the
role of Senators during an impeachment.
In a
recent floor speech , Schumer blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for
describing himself as "not an impartial juror" when it comes to Trump's upcoming impeachment
trial.
"Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, 'I'm
not an impartial juror. I'm not impartial about this at all.' That is an astonishing admission
of partisanship," said Schumer.
Yet, as CNN
's Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck note, Schumer said during Bill Clinton's 1998 - 1999
impeachment saga that the Senate was "not like a jury box," and that senators, who are not
impartial, had previously formed their opinions heading into the trial .
Schumer had attacked his Senate opponent Al D'Mato for not taking a position on
impeachment during their 1998 debate. D'Mato said he would not take a position until "the
proof is presented" at the Senate trial – calling it "inappropriate." https://t.co/nPMyvjZE6V
pic.twitter.com/tYAc6hkwzd
In fact, as "KFile" notes, Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 on the promise that a
vote for him would be a vote not to impeach Clinton .
We have a new story looking at past Chuck Schumer's comments on impeachment. Including
repeatedly arguing the Senate was not a jury in 1999 and him campaigning that he would not
support impeachment or convicting Clinton in 1998. https://t.co/nPMyvjZE6V https://t.co/LPr1BlfD4O
pic.twitter.com/87q7hxKLks
Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" in January 1999, Schumer said the trial in the Senate
was not like a jury box.
" We have a pre-opinion ," Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican
senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who
said they would vote in the Senate. " This is not a criminal trial, but this is something
that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of
politics ."
" So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it's not a jury
box ," King asked Schumer.
"Many do," Schumer responded. "And then they change. In fact, it's also not like a jury
box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don't have jurors called and
lobbied and things like that. I mean, it's quite different than a jury. And we're also the
judge."
A day later, the Republican National Committee attacked Schumer in a press release for
previous comments in the House saying there was no basis for impeachment. - CNN
Then-RNC chairman Jim Nicholson said of Schumer "No self-respecting jury would allow
somebody who's already formed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused," adding "but
Chuck Schumer has loudly proclaimed that he's pre-judged the case. He's already announced that
he's decided the President shouldn't be impeached , much less removed from office."
Schumer responded days later, telling NBC 's "Meet the Press": "The Founding Fathers --
whose wisdom just knocks my socks off every day, it really does -- set this process up to be in
the Senate, not at the Supreme Court, not in some judicial body ."
"Every day, for instance, hundreds of people call us up and lobby us on one side and the
other. You can't do that with a juror," he added. "The standard is different. It's supposed to
be a little bit judicial and a little bit legislative-political. That's how it's been.
Meanwhile, Schumer said in a 1998 Op-Ed that he would be voting to acquit Clinton , and that
he'd made up his mind that September.
"My decision will not come as a surprise," Schumer
wrote . "I will be voting to acquit the president on both counts. I had to make my decision
in September as a member of the Judiciary Committee in the House, and while I was in the middle
of the campaign."
Responding to CNN 's recent report (yet failing to explain the 'impartial juror' hypocrisy),
Schumer's office said that his statements came after the conclusion of the Starr investigation,
"which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and
been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already
voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor."
"As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of
the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made -- in stark contrast to
the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and
evidence from coming out." 43 minutes ago (Edited) CNN is a CIA / Ziocon loudspeaker. I think
they are furiously backpedaling and trying to undo the Anti-Trump necromancy of the past few
years. Why? because they realize that Orange Donald is really Zion Don, and that MAGA is being
served up as a watery bone broth, meanwhile MIGA is prime rib and is being served up on a daily
basis from the White House.
"... Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization " big bang ." ..."
"... The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power. ..."
"... Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department ..."
Rarely does the world get a true look inside the corrupt world of Western oligarchs and
the brazen manipulations they use to enhance their fortunes at the expense of the public
good.
The following comes from correspondence of the Hungarian-born billionaire, now naturalized
American speculator, George Soros. The hacker group CyberBerkut has published online letters
allegedly written by Soros that reveal him not only as puppet master of the US-backed Ukraine
regime .
They also reveal his machinations with the US Government and the officials of the European
Union in a scheme where, if he succeeds, he could win billions in the plunder of Ukraine
assets. All, of course, would be at the expense of Ukrainian citizens and of EU
taxpayers.
What the three hacked documents reveal is a degree of behind-the-scene manipulation of the
most minute details of the Kiev regime by the New York billionaire.
In the longest memo, dated March 15, 2015 and marked "Confidential" Soros outlines a
detailed map of actions for the Ukraine regime. Titled, "A short and medium term comprehensive
strategy for the new Ukraine," the memo from Soros calls for steps to "restore the fighting
capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement." To do the restoring, Soros blithely
notes that "General Wesley Clark, Polish General Skrzypczak and a few specialists under the
auspices of the Atlantic Council [emphasis added -- f.w.e.] will advise President Poroshenko
how to restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement
."
Soros also calls for supplying lethal arms to Ukraine and secretly training Ukrainian army
personnel in Romania to avoid direct NATO presence in Ukraine . The
Atlantic Council is a leading Washington pro-NATO think tank .
Notably, Wesley Clark is also a business associate of Soros in BNK Petroleum which does
business in Poland.
Clark, some might recall, was the mentally-unstable NATO General in charge of the 1999
bombing of Serbia who ordered NATO soldiers to fire on Russian soldiers guarding the Pristina
International Airport. The Russians were there as a part of an agreed joint NATO–Russia
peacekeeping operation supposed to police Kosovo. The British Commander, General Mike Jackson
refused Clark, retorting, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you ." Now Clark apparently decided to
come out of retirement for the chance to go at Russia directly.
Naked asset grab
In his March 2015 memo Soros further writes that Ukrainian President Poroshenko's "first
priority must be to regain control of financial markets," which he assures Poroshenko that
Soros would be ready to assist in: "I am ready to call Jack Lew of the US Treasury to sound him
out about the swap agreement."
He also calls on the EU to give Ukraine an annual aid sum of €11 billion via a special
EU borrowing facility. Soros proposes in effect using the EU's "AAA" top credit rating to
provide a risk insurance for investment into Ukraine.
Whose risk would the EU insure?
Soros details, "I am prepared to invest up to €1 billion in Ukrainian businesses.
This is likely to attract the interest of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine
must become an attractive investment destination."
Not to leave any doubt, Soros continues, "The investments will be for-profit but I will
pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am
advocating policies in search of personal gain. "
For anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe
and around the world since the late 1980's, will know that his supposedly philanthropic
"democracy-building" projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990's allowed Soros the
businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries using Harvard University's
"shock therapy" messiah, and Soros associate, Jeffrey Sachs, to convince the post-Soviet
governments to privatize and open to a "free market" at once, rather than gradually.
The example of Soros in Liberia is instructive for understanding the seemingly seamless
interplay between Soros the shrewd businessman and Soros the philanthropist. In West Africa
George Soros backed a former Open Society employee of his, Liberian President Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf, giving her international publicity and through his influence, even arranging a Nobel
Peace Prize for her in 2011, insuring her election as president. Before her presidency she had
been well-indoctrinated into the Western free market game, studying economics at Harvard and
working for the US-controlled World Bank in Washington and the Rockefeller Citibank in Nairobi.
Before becoming Liberia's President, she worked for Soros directly as chair of his Open Society
Initiative for West Africa ( OSIWA
).
Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first acts
as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia whose
purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and Rothschild
mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human rights ."
Naftogaz the target
The Soros memo makes clear he has his eyes on the Ukrainian state gas and energy monopoly,
Naftogaz. He writes, "The centerpiece of economic reforms will be the reorganization of
Naftogaz and the introduction of market pricing for all forms of energy, replacing hidden
subsidies
"
In an earlier letter Soros wrote in December 2014 to both President Poroshenko and Prime
Minister Yatsenyuk, Soros openly called for his Shock Therapy:
"I want to appeal to you to unite behind the reformers in your government and give your
wholehearted support to a radical, 'big bang' type of approach. That is to say,
administrative controls would be removed and the economy would move to market prices rapidly
rather than gradually Naftogaz needs to be reorganized with a big bang replacing the hidden
subsidies
"
Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of
the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly
brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization "
big bang
."
The Puppet-Master?
The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is
effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine
branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His
IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet
Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also
admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government
into power.
Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought
the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in
the US State Department . In 2004 just weeks after Soros' International Renaissance
Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael McFaul
wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in organizing color revolutions,
who later became US Ambassador to Russia, revealed:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of
influence would prefer different language to describe their activities -- democratic
assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. -- but their work, however
labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine. The U.S. Agency for International
Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and a few other foundations sponsored certain
U.S. organizations, including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the
National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity Center, the Eurasia Foundation, Internews and
several others to provide small grants and technical assistance to Ukrainian civil society. The
European Union, individual European countries and the Soros-funded International Renaissance
Foundation did the same .
Soros
shapes 'New Ukraine'
Today the CyberBerkut hacked papers show that Soros' IRF money is behind creation of a
National Reform Council, a body organized by presidential decree from Poroshenko which allows
the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's legislature. Soros writes,
"The framework for bringing the various branches of government together has also emerged.
The National Reform Council (NRC) brings together the presidential administration, the
cabinet of ministers, the Rada and its committees and civil society. The International
Renaissance Foundation which is the Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundations was the sole
financial supporter of the NRC until now "
Soros' NRC in effect is the vehicle to allow the President to override parliamentary debate
to push through "reforms," with the declared first priority being privatization of Naftogaz and
raising gas prices drastically to Ukrainian industry and households, something the bankrupt
country can hardly afford .
In his letter to Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, Soros hints that he played a key role in
selection of three key non-Ukrainian ministers -- Natalia Jaresko, an American ex- State
Department official as Finance Minister; Aivras Abromavicius of Lithuania as Economics
Minister, and a health minister from Georgia. Soros in his December 2014 letter, referring to
his proposal for a "big bank" privatization of Naftogaz and price rise, states,
"You are fortunate to have appointed three 'new Ukrainian' ministers and several natives
(sic) who are committed to this approach
."
Elsewhere Soros speaks about de facto creating the impression within the EU that the current
government of Yatsenyuk is finally cleaning out the notorious corruption that has dominated
every Kiev regime since 1991. Creating that temporary reform illusion, he remarks, will
convince the EU to cough up the €11 billion annual investment insurance fund. His March
2015 paper says that, "It is essential for the government to produce a visible demonstration
(sic) during the next three months in order to change the widely prevailing image of Ukraine as
an utterly corrupt country." That he states will open the EU to make the €11 billion
insurance guarantee investment fund .
While saying that it is important to show Ukraine as a country that is not corrupt, Soros
reveals he has little concern when transparency and proper procedures block his agenda. Talking
about his proposals to reform Ukraine's constitution to enable privatizations and other
Soros-friendly moves, he complains,
"The process has been slowed down by the insistence of the newly elected Rada on proper
procedures and total transparency
."
Soros suggests that he intends to create this "visible demonstration" through his
initiatives, such as using the Soros-funded National Reform Council, a body organized by
presidential decree which allows the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's
legislature.
George Soros is also using his new European Council on Foreign Relations think-tank to lobby
his Ukraine strategy, with his council members such as Alexander Graf Lambsdorff or Joschka
Fischer or Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, not to mention former ECB head, Jean-Claude Trichet no
doubt laying a subtle role.
George Soros, now 84, was born in Hungary as a Jew, George Sorosz. Soros once boasted in a
TV interview that he posed during the war as a gentile with forged papers, assisting the Horthy
government to seize property of other Hungarian Jews who were being shipped to the Nazi death
camps. Soros told the TV moderator, "There was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that
was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't
there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."
This is the same morality apparently behind Soros' activities in Ukraine today. It seems
again to matter not to him that the Ukrainian government he helped bring to power in February
2014 US coup d'etat is riddled with explicit anti-semites and self-proclaimed neo-Nazis from
the Svoboda Party and Pravy Sektor. George Soros is clearly a devotee of
"public-private-partnership." Only here the public gets fleeced to enrich private investors
like Mr. Soros and friends. Cynically, Soros signs his Ukraine strategy memo, "George
Soros–A self-appointed advocate of the new Ukraine, March 12, 2015."
And now we learn that our own State Department was filling Soros coffers with our taxpayer
money to use against us and destroy our republic.
Whenever Democrats scream about cuts in foreign aid, know that they are squealing because
their "cut" of the laundered funds is in jeopardy and they have to answer to Soros for the
rest.
He's contributed a lot of money to the Dem Party to be so insulated from not only
prosecution but from criticism. If and when he gets criticized in a publication or article,
he screams "Anti-Semitism!" He's become good at making everything a win-win for himself.
Preaches socialism out of one side of his mouth to "virtue signal" to the world and then
loots the objects thereof out of the other side of his mouth for the benefit of his alleged
foundations. Why we can't prosecute him for interfering in our elections with his stolen
money is something hard to understand.
Ukraine is *** infested. I would like to know Soros ties to Igor Kolomoisky.
"Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first
acts as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia
whose purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and
Rothschild mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human
rights ."
Wherever there are wealthy *** Zionist fascist oligarch sociopaths there is trouble...
I'm finding it hard to think of examples where the formerly norm-giving group becomes
derided or humiliated.
You can probably try to look at the situation in (now independent) republics of the former
USSR. Simplifying previously oppressed group, given a lucky chance, most often strive for
dominance and oppression of other groups including and especially former dominant group. This
is an eternal damnation of ethno/cultural nationalism.
And not only it (look at Mutual Help and The State in Shantytowns.) In them ethnic
comminutes often own protection markets, offer services that hire people and replace the state,
pay off gang leaders. they also provide some community support for particular ethnic group,
enforce the rules of trade within themselves, etc. In GB the abuse of children by ethnic gangs
was sickening ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/30/abuse-children-asian-communities
)
In many cases of ethnic/cultural nationalism this looks more like a competition for
resources with the smoke screen of noble intentions/human rights/past oppression/
humiliations/etc
Or you can look at the language policy in the USA and the actual situation in some
areas/institutions of Florida and California and how English speakers feel in those
areas/institutions. Or in some areas of Quebec in Canada.
That actually suggests another meaning of famous Randolph Bourne quote " War is the health
of the state " (said in the midst of the First World War.) It bring the unity unachievable in
peace time or by any other methods, albeit temporarily (from Ch 14. Howard Zinn book A People's
History of the United States ):
the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men
died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of
trenches.
In the United States, not yet in the war, there was worry about the health of the state.
Socialism was growing. The IWW seemed to be everywhere. Class conflict was intense. In the
summer of 1916, during a Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco, a bomb exploded, killing
nine people; two local radicals, Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, were arrested and would
spend twenty years in prison. Shortly after that Senator James Wadsworth of New York
suggested compulsory military training for all males to avert the danger that "these people
of ours shall be divided into classes." Rather: "We must let our young men know that they owe
some responsibility to this country."
The supreme fulfillment of that responsibility was taking place in Europe. Ten million
were to die on the battlefield; 20 million were to die of hunger and disease related to the
war. And no one since that day has been able to show that the war brought any gain for
humanity that would be worth one human life. The rhetoric of the socialists, that it was an
"imperialist war," now seems moderate and hardly arguable. The advanced capitalist countries
of Europe were fighting over boundaries, colonies, spheres of influence; they were competing
for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East.
Neo-McCarthyism now serves a somewhat similar purpose in the USA. Among other thing (like
absolving Hillary from her fiasco to "deux ex machine" trick instead of real reason -- the
crisis and rejection of neoliberalism by the sizable strata of the USA population) it is an
attempt to unify the nation after 2016.
Trump can be impeached as a war criminal just for his false flag Douma attack (along with
members of his administration). But Neoliberal Dems and frst of all Pelosi are war criminals too,
with Pelosi aiding and abetting war criminal Bush.
So this is a variation of the theme of Lavrentiy Beria most famous quote: "Show me a
man and I will find you a crime"
I think tose neolib Dems who supported impeachment disqualified themselves from the running.
That includes Warren, who proved to be a very weak, easily swayed politician. It is quote
probably that they increased (may be considerably) chances of Trump reelection, but pushing
independents who were ready to abandon him, back into Trump camp. Now Trump is able to present
himself as a victim of neoliberal Dems/neocons witch hunt.
The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and (until very recently) has
atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn't make it any less
indispensable.
The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved
foolhardy. (I supported it at the time, but I was a government lawyer then, not a public
commentator.) Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to
regard impeachment as obsolete. Faithless Execution countered that this was the wrong
lesson to take from the affair. Clinton's impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct,
though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of
the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior,
strongly opposed Clinton's removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for
grave misconduct that involves the president's essential Article II duties; and that because
impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public
consensus that transcends partisan lines.
This is why, unlike many opponents of President Trump's impeachment, I have never questioned
the legitimacy of the Democratic-controlled House's investigations of misconduct allegations
against the president. I believe the House must act as a body (investigations should not be
partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries), and it must respect the lawful and
essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the
authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.
Moreover, while egregious misconduct will usually be easy to spot and grasp, that will not
always be the case. When members of Congress claim to see it, they should have a fair
opportunity to expose and explain it. To my mind, President Obama was the kind of chief
executive that the Framers feared, but this was not obvious because he was not committing
felonies. Instead, he was consciously undermining our constitutional order. He usurped the
right to dictate law rather than execute it. His extravagant theory of executive discretion to
"waive" the enforcement of laws he opposed flouted his basic constitutional duty to execute the
laws faithfully. He and his underlings willfully and serially deceived Congress and the public
on such major matters as Obamacare and the Benghazi massacre. They misled Congress on, and
obstructed its investigation of, the outrageous Fast and Furious "gun-walking" operation, in
connection with which a border patrol agent was murdered. With his Iran deal, the president
flouted the Constitution's treaty process and colluded with a hostile foreign power to withhold
information from Congress, in an arrangement that empowered (and paid cash ransom to) the
world's leading sponsor of anti-American terrorism.
My critics fairly noted that I opposed Obama politically, and therefore contended that I was
masquerading as a constitutional objection what was really a series of policy disputes. I don't
think that is right, though, for two reasons.
First, my impeachment argument was not that Obama was pursuing policies I deeply opposed. I
was very clear that elections have consequences, and the president had every right to press his
agenda. My objection was that he was imposing his agenda lawlessly, breaking the limitations
within which the Framers cabined executive power, precisely to prevent presidents from becoming
tyrants. If allowed to stand, Obama precedents would permanently alter our governing framework.
Impeachment is there to protect our governing framework.
Second, I argued that, my objections notwithstanding, Obama should not be impeached in the
absence of a public consensus for his removal. Yes, Republicans should try to build that case,
try to edify the public about why the president's actions threatened the Constitution and its
separation of powers. But they should not seek to file articles of impeachment simply because
they could -- i.e., because control of the House theoretically gave them the numbers to do it.
The House is not obliged to file impeachment articles just because there may be impeachable
conduct. Because impeachment is so divisive, the Framers feared that it could be triggered on
partisan rather than serious grounds. The two-thirds supermajority requirement for Senate
conviction guards against that: The House should not impeach unless there is a reasonable
possibility that the Senate would remove -- which, in Obama's case, there was not.
I also tried to focus on incentives. If impeachment were a credible threat, and Congress
began investigating and publicly exposing abuses, a sensible president would desist in the
misconduct, making it unnecessary to proceed with impeachment. On the other hand, a failed
impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your
real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion
would be counterproductive.
I've taken the same tack with President Trump.
The objections to Trump are very different from those to Obama. He is breaking not laws but
norms of presidential behavior and decorum. For the most part, I object to this. There are lots
of things about our government that need disruption, but even disruptive presidents should be
mindful that they hold the office of Washington and Lincoln and aspire to their dignity, even
if their greatness is out of reach.
That said, impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency's core powers, not behavior
that is intemperate or gauche. Critics must be mindful that the People, not the pundits, are
sovereign, and they elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he turns out to be as
president exactly what he appeared to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching
him.
The president's misconduct on Ukraine is small potatoes. Democrats were right to expose it,
and we would be dealing with a more serious situation if the defense aid appropriated by
Congress had actually been denied, rather than inconsequentially delayed. If Democrats had
wanted to make a point about discouraging foreign interference in American politics
(notwithstanding their long record of encouraging it), that would have been fine. They could
have called for the president's censure, which would have put Republicans on the defensive.
Ukraine could have been incorporated as part of their 2020 campaign that Trump should be
defeated, despite a surging economy and relative peace.
Conducting an impeachment inquiry is one thing, but for the House to take the drastic step
of impeaching the president is abusive on this record. Yes, it was foolish of Trump to mention
the Bidens to President Zelensky and to seek Ukraine's help in investigating the Bidens. There
may well be corruption worth probing, but the president ought to leave that to researchers in
his campaign. If there is something that a government should be looking into, leave that to the
Justice Department, which can (and routinely does) seek foreign assistance when necessary. The
president, however, should have stayed out of it. Still, it is absurd to posit, as Democrats
do, that, by not staying out of it, the president threatened election integrity and U.S.
national security. Such outlandish arguments may make Ukraine more of a black eye for Democrats
than for the president.
But whoever ultimately bears the brunt of the impeachment push, I have to ask myself a hard
question: Is this the world I was asking for when I wrote a book contending that, for our
system to work as designed, impeachment has to be a credible threat? I don't think so . . . but
I do worry about it.
Back to the Clinton impeachment. I tried to make the point that that impeachment effort --
against public opinion, and based on misconduct that, while dreadful, was not central to the
presidency -- has contributed significantly to the poisonous politics we have today. Democrats
have been looking for payback ever since, and now they have it -- in a way that is very likely
to make impeachment more routine in the future.
I don't see how our constitutional system can work without a viable impeachment remedy. But
I may have been wrong to believe that we could be trusted to invoke the remedy responsibly. I
used to poke fun at pols who would rather hide under their desks than utter the dreaded I-word.
Turns out they knew something I didn't.
...& overwhelming," but this Scam Impeachment was neither. Also, very unfair with no
Due Process, proper representation, or witnesses. Now Pelosi is demanding everything the
Republicans weren't allowed to have in the House. Dems want to run majority Republican
Senate. Hypocrites!
Donald J. Trump 7:12 PM - 25 Dec 2019
Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be
allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was
no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with "no pressure." She said it must be
"bipartisan...
The #Dems ' war on democracy ratcheting up as they refuse to send the articles of
impeachment to the Senate for a proper trial. GOP Congressman @RepMarkGreen says ' #NancyPelosi is a
tyrannical person OUT OF CONTROL!' #TrishRegan
O nce in a blue moon an indispensable book comes out making a clear case for sanity in what
is now a post-MAD world. That's the responsibility carried by " The (Real)
Revolution in Military Affairs ," by Andrei Martyanov (Clarity Press), arguably the most
important book of 2019.
Martyanov is the total package -- and he comes with extra special attributes as a top-flight
Russian military analyst, born in Baku in those Back in the U.S.S.R. days, living and working
in the U.S., and writing and blogging in English.
Right from the start, Martyanov wastes no time destroying not only Fukuyama's and
Huntington's ravings but especially Graham Allison's childish and meaningless Thucydides Trap
argument -- as if the power equation between the U.S. and China in the 21stcentury could be
easily interpreted in parallel to Athens and Sparta slouching towards the Peloponnesian War
over 2,400 years ago. What next? Xi Jinping as the new Genghis Khan?
(By the way, the best current essay on Thucydides is in Italian, by Luciano Canfora ("
Tucidide: La Menzogna, La Colpa, L'Esilio" ). No Trap. Martyanov visibly relishes defining the
Trap as a "figment of the imagination" of people who "have a very vague understanding of real
warfare in the 21st century." No wonder Xi explicitly said the Trap does not exist.)
Martyanov had already detailed in his splendid, previous book, "Losing Military Supremacy:
The Myopia of American Strategic Planning," how "American lack of historic experience with
continental warfare" ended up "planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of the American
military mythology of the 20thand 21stcenturies which is foundational to the American decline,
due to hubris and detachment of reality." Throughout the book, he unceasingly provides solid
evidence about the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a possible, future war against
real armies (not the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's), air forces, air defenses and naval
power.
Do the Math
One of the key takeaways is the failure of U.S. mathematical models: and readers of the book
do need to digest quite a few mathematical equations. The key point is that this failure led
the U.S. "on a continuous downward spiral of diminishing military capabilities against the
nation [Russia] she thought she defeated in the Cold War."
In the U.S., Revolution in Military
Affairs (RMA) was introduced by the late Andrew Marshall, a.k.a. Yoda, the former head of
Net Assessment at the Pentagon and the de facto inventor of the "pivot to Asia" concept. Yet
Martyanov tells us that RMA actually started as MTR (Military-Technological Revolution),
introduced by Soviet military theoreticians back in the 1970s.
One of the staples of RMA concerns nations capable of producing land-attack cruise missiles,
a.k.a. TLAMs. As it stands, only the U.S., Russia, China and France can do it. And there are
only two global systems providing satellite guidance to cruise missiles: the American GPS and
the Russian GLONASS. Neither China's BeiDou nor the European Galileo qualify – yet
– as global GPS systems.
Then there's Net-Centric Warfare (NCW). The term itself was coined by the late Admiral
Arthur Cebrowski in 1998 in an
article he co-wrote with John Garstka's titled, "Network-Centric Warfare – Its Origin and
Future."
Deploying his mathematical equations, Martyanov soon tells us that "the era of subsonic
anti-shipping missiles is over." NATO, that brain-dead organism (copyright Emmanuel Macron)
now has to face the supersonic Russian P-800 Onyx and the Kalibr-class M54 in a "highly hostile
Electronic Warfare environment." Every developed modern military today applies Net-Centric Warfare
(NCW), developed by the Pentagon in the 1990s.
Rendering of a future combat systems network. (soldiersmediacenter/Flickr, CC BY 2.0,
Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov
mentions in his new book something that I learned on my visit to Donbass in March 2015: how
NCW principles, "based on Russia's C4ISR capabilities made available by the Russian military to
numerically inferior armed forces of the Donbass Republics (LDNR), were used to devastating
effect both at the battles of Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, when attacking the cumbersome Soviet-era
Ukrainian Armed Forces military."
No Escape From the Kinzhal
Martyanov provides ample information on Russia's latest missile – the hypersonic
Mach-10 aero-ballistic Kinzhal, recently tested in the Arctic.
Crucially, as he explains, "no existing anti-missile defense in the U.S. Navy is capable of
shooting [it] down even in the case of the detection of this missile." Kinzhal has a range of
2,000 km, which leaves its carriers, MiG-31K and TU-22M3M, "invulnerable to the only defense a
U.S. Carrier Battle Group, a main pillar of U.S. naval power, can mount – carrier fighter
aircraft." These fighters simply don't have the range.
The Kinzhal was one of the weapons announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin's
game-changing March
1, 2018 speech at the Federal Assembly. That's the day, Martyanov stresses, when the real
RMA arrived, and "changed completely the face of peer-peer warfare, competition and global
power balance dramatically."
Top Pentagon officials such as General
John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have admitted on the record there are "no
existing countermeasures" against, for instance, the hypersonic, Mach 27 glide vehicle Avangard
(which renders anti-ballistic missile systems useless), telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services
Committee the only way out would be "a nuclear deterrent." There are also no existing
counter-measures against anti-shipping missiles such as the Zircon and Kinzhal.
Any military analyst knows very well how the Kinzhal destroyed a land target the size of a
Toyota Corolla in Syria after being launched 1,000 km away in adverse weather conditions. The
corollary is the stuff of NATO nightmares: NATO's command and control installations in Europe
are de facto indefensible.
Martyanov gets straight to the point: "The introduction of hypersonic weapons surely pours
some serious cold water on the American obsession with securing the North American continent
from retaliatory strikes."
Kh-47M2 Kinzhal; 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade. (Kremilin via Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov is thus unforgiving on U.S. policymakers who "lack the necessary tool-kit for
grasping the unfolding geostrategic reality in which the real revolution in military affairs
had dramatically downgraded the always inflated American military capabilities and continues to
redefine U.S. geopolitical status away from its self-declared hegemony."
And it gets worse: "Such weapons ensure a guaranteed retaliation [Martyanov's italics] on
the U.S. proper." Even the existing Russian nuclear deterrents – and to a lesser degree
Chinese, as paraded recently -- "are capable of overcoming the existing U.S. anti-ballistic
systems and destroying the United States," no matter what crude propaganda the Pentagon is
peddling.
In February 2019, Moscow announced the completion of tests of a nuclear-powered engine for
the Petrel cruise missile. This is a subsonic cruise missile with nuclear propulsion that can
remain in air for quite a long time, covering intercontinental distances, and able to attack
from the most unexpected directions. Martyanov mischievously characterizes the Petrel as "a
vengeance weapon in case some among American decision-makers who may help precipitate a new
world war might try to hide from the effects of what they have unleashed in the relative safety
of the Southern Hemisphere."
Hybrid War Gone Berserk
A section of the book expands on China's military progress, and the fruits of the
Russia-China strategic partnership, such as Beijing buying $3 billion-worth of S-400 Triumph
anti-aircraft missiles -- "ideally suited to deal with the exact type of strike assets the
United States would use in case of a conventional conflict with China."
Beijing parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic, October 2019.
(YouTube screenshot)
Because of the timing, the analysis does not even take into consideration the arsenal
presented in early October at the Beijing parade celebrating the 70thanniversary of the
People's Republic.
That includes, among other things, the "carrier-killer" DF-21D, designed to hit warships at
sea at a range of up to 1,500 km; the intermediate range "Guam Killer" DF-26; the DF-17
hypersonic missile; and the long-range submarine-launched and ship-launched YJ-18A anti-ship
cruise missiles. Not to mention the DF-41 ICBM – the backbone of China's nuclear
deterrent, capable of reaching the U.S. mainland carrying multiple warheads.
Martyanov could not escape addressing the RAND Corporation, whose reason to exist is to
relentlessly push for more money for the Pentagon – blaming Russia for "hybrid war" (an
American invention) even as it moans about the U.S.'s incapacity of defeating Russia in each
and every war game. RAND's war games pitting the U.S. and allies against Russia and China
invariably ended in a "catastrophe" for the "finest fighting force in the world."
Martyanov also addresses the S-500s, capable of reaching AWACS planes and possibly even
capable of intercepting hypersonic non-ballistic targets. The S-500 and its latest middle-range
state of the art air-defense system S-350 Vityaz will be operational in 2020.
His key takeway: "There is no parity between Russia and the United States in such fields as
air-defense, hypersonic weapons and, in general, missile development, to name just a few fields
– the United States lags behind in these fields, not just in years but in generations
[italics mine]."
All across the Global South, scores of nations are very much aware that the U.S. economic
"order" – rather disorder – is on the brink of collapse. In contrast, a
cooperative, connected, rule-based, foreign relations between sovereign nations model is being
advanced in Eurasia – symbolized by the merging of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the NDB (the BRICS bank).
The key guarantors of the new model are Russia and China. And Beijing and Moscow harbor no
illusion whatsoever about the toxic dynamics in Washington. My recent conversations with top
analysts in Kazakhstan last month and in Moscow last week once again stressed the futility of
negotiating with people described – with overlapping shades of sarcasm – as
exceptionalist fanatics. Russia, China and many corners of Eurasia have figured out there are
no possible, meaningful deals with a nation bent on breaking every deal.
Indispensable?
No: Vulnerable
Martyanov cannot but evoke Putin's speech to the Federal Assembly in February 2019, after
the unilateral Washington abandonment of the INF treaty, clearing the way for U.S. deployment
of intermediate and close range missiles stationed in Europe and pointed at Russia:
"Russia will be forced to create and deploy those types of weapons against those regions
from where we will face a direct threat, but also against those regions hosting the centers
where decisions are taken on using those missile systems threatening us."
Translation: American Invulnerability is over – for good.
In the short term, things can always get worse. At his traditional, year-end presser in
Moscow, lasting almost four and a half hours, Putin stated that Russia is more than ready to
"simply renew the existing New START agreement", which is bound to expire in early 2021: "They
[the U.S.] can send us the agreement tomorrow, or we can sign and send it to Washington." And
yet, "so far our proposals have been left unanswered. If the New START ceases to exist, nothing
in the world will hold back an arms race. I believe this is bad."
"Bad" is quite the euphemism. Martyanov prefers to stress how "most of the American elites,
at least for now, still reside in a state of Orwellian cognitive dissonance" even as the real
RMA "blew the myth of American conventional invincibility out of the water."
Martyanov is one of the very few analysts – always from different parts of Eurasia --
who have warned about the danger of the U.S. "accidentally stumbling" into a war against
Russia, China, or both which is impossible to be won conventionally, "let alone through the
nightmare of a global nuclear catastrophe."
Is that enough to instill at least a modicum of sense into those who lord over that massive
cash cow, the industrial-military-security complex? Don't count on it.
* * *
Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
"
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
This is like the debate about the fundamental question "How many angels can dance on the head
of a pin?"
Notable quotes:
"... has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are transmitted? ..."
Speaker Pelosi's unconstitutional decision to delay transmission of the articles of
impeachment to the Senate in order to gain partisan advantage raises the following question:
has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization
or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are
transmitted? This highly technical constitutional issue is being debated by two of my
former Harvard Law School colleagues -- Professors Laurence Tribe and Noah Feldman -- both
liberal Democrats who support President Trump's impeachment.
Tribe believes that Trump has been impeached and that it would be perfectly proper to
leave it at that : by declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, the Democrats get a
win-win. President Trump remains impeached but he gets no opportunity to be tried and
acquitted by the Senate. This cynical, partisan ploy is acceptable to Tribe because it brings
about the partisan result he prefers: Trump bears forever the stigma of impeachment without
having the opportunity to challenge that stigma by a Senate acquittal. Under the Tribe
scenario, the House Democrats get to "obstruct" the Senate and "abuse" their power (to borrow
terms from the articles of impeachment).
Feldman disagrees with Tribe, arguing -- quite correctly -- that impeachment and a removal
trial go together. If a president is impeached, he must be tried. Impeachment, in his view,
is not merely a vote; it is the first step in a constitutionally mandated two-step process.
He goes so far as to say that if the articles of impeachment are not forwarded to the Senate
for trial, there has been no valid impeachment.
Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being
justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance as being a
restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful is the paramount
geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented
in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far
more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly
violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded
nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is
that Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will
be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in
arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.
Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union,
Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea about this handover
of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and
largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the
Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their
formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one)
in Ukraine.
This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via
coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU
would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine
until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs,
who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider
deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government.
Crimeans were terrified and some of them
wrote to friends
in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored by the
proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human
rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so,
any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal
arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant
international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the
US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by billionares who are
allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and
Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia.
Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements
there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing mother
state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother
state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has remained constant
throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two United Nations'
declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed the issue of
self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a matter
of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right to
self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments
did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the importance of the
principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that
self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme
instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother state.[9]
This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding
the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to
various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those subjected to
conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the right to external self-determination
through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all
peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised
through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a
right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in
instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case
of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is
attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the
prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland,
international law is neutral on secession -- it does not support a right to secession nor does it
prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to
political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway was and
is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from
the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an
alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean
Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued.
The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not
encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law
does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the
absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's
unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless,
there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view
of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of
Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced remedial arguments
in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in
line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally, we could
not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of
Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue is one of
defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right -- the right to
life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under contemporary
international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin
asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even once in this article is
anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych
-- the overthrow
that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that
there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan
movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that
statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly was a coup
. Furthermore:
even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of
Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in
attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality in
general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e. its
capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress and
crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where
the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the concept of a
"failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must be continued based
on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean "use of
force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given nation's government in order to
suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial integrity, and other fundamental
international legal principles; other states are not released from the obligations with respect to
this state [in other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession movement
within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania.]
In June 2013 (well before the 'democratic revolution' in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, published on its website, a "Project Description" for "Renovation of
School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine," under the euphemistic title
"EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program"
. EUCOM is the US European Command -- it is
purely military, not "humanitarian," at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed extensive
photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other US-made products, that
the US regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some American corporation, yet to be
determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at that time was a Ukrainian Government
property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why were US taxpayers supposed to fund this
'humanitarian' operation, by the U.S. military?
Eric Zuesse
December 23, 2019 |
History
The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea's Breakaway
Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as
being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance
as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful
is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the
links here) documented in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced
mess that is interpretable far more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles,
the US Government does quite blatantly violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and
invasions against countries that never invaded nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is that Crimea's breaking away from
Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will be documented here, by
exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored
in arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of
Russia. Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the
Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea
about this handover of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the
foreign-language-speaking and largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to
their north, so that as soon as the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans
would tolerate any continuation of their formal association with Ukraine was by being declared
Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one) in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean
independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via coup) by the US regime, in order to be
handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU would accept Ukraine, to NATO,
which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine until the American
conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs, who were eager
to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider deals
with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs' 'news'-media successfully
propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the
time of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations,
and
on the day of the coup,
February 20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but
the eight buses carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing
Crimeans were killed
. Many of the surviving ones were
permanently injured
. Crimeans were
terrified and some of them
wrote to
friends in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored
by the proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the
basic human rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed
forces; and, so, any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake.
But, still, legal arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so,
here is a quick intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the
relevant international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because
in the US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by
billionares who are allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two
breakaway-movements (Kurds and Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to
the US-and-allied lies about Russia. Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing
mother state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or
where the mother state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has
remained constant throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two
United Nations' declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed
the issue of self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a
matter of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right
to self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial
governments did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the
importance of the principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing
states only in extreme instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother
state.[9] This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court
opinion regarding the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all
peoples are entitled to various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some
peoples, such as those subjected to conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire
the right to external self-determination through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be
concluded that international law bestows on all peoples the right to self-determination, but
that the right to external self-determination, exercised through remedial secession, only
applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not
contain a right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates
secession in instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed
(like in the case of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if
the secessionist entity is attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of
international law, such as the prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern
Cyprus).[12] In other instances of attempted secession, where the relevant people is not
oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland, international law is neutral on secession -- it does not
support a right to secession nor does it prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute
is left to the realm of domestic law and to political negotiations between the mother state and
the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway
was and is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine
from the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to
self-determination or an alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for
the separation of the Crimean Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation
seem to have argued.
The article explains that beyond the context of decolonization,
the right to self-determination does not encompass a general right to unilateral secession and
demonstrates that contemporary international law does not acknowledge a right to remedial
secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that even when assuming that such a
right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the absence of a legal
entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's unilateral
secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it.
Nonetheless, there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to
be illegal in view of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that
is relevant in the case of Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious
injustices suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced
remedial arguments in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first
in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea
and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally,
we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests
of Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue
is one of defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human
right -- the right to life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under
contemporary international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the
allegations that Putin asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even
once in this article is anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of
Yanukovych
-- the overthrow that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia.
Instead the article simply assumes that there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution
of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant
effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly
was a coup
. Furthermore: even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the
Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities
in attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas
Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality
in general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e.
its capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress
and crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.]
Even where the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the
concept of a "failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must
be continued based on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force
[the writers mean "use of force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given
nation's government in order to suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for
territorial integrity, and other fundamental international legal principles; other states are
not released from the obligations with respect to this state [in other words: foreign nations
must never side with nor support a secession movement within a country. Blatantly false
allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania.]
In June 2013 (well before the 'democratic revolution' in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, published on its website, a "Project Description" for
"Renovation of School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine," under the euphemistic title
"EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program"
. EUCOM is the US European Command -- it
is purely military, not "humanitarian," at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed
extensive photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other
US-made products, that the US regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some
American corporation, yet to be determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at
that time was a Ukrainian Government property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why
were US taxpayers supposed to fund this 'humanitarian' operation, by the U.S. military?
Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far
more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly
violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded
nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is
that Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will
be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in
arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.
Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union,
Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea about this handover
of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and
largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the
Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their
formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one)
in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via
coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU
would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine
until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs,
who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider
deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs' 'news'-media successfully
propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the time
of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations, and
on the day of the coup, February
20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but the eight buses
carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing Crimeans were killed
.
Many of the surviving ones were
permanently
injured
. Crimeans were terrified and some of them
wrote to friends
in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored by the
proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human
rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so,
any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal
arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant
international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the
US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by billionares who are
allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and
Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia.
Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements
there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing mother
state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother
state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has remained constant
throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two United Nations'
declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed the issue of
self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a matter
of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right to
self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments
did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the importance of the
principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that
self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme
instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother state.[9]
This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding
the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to
various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those subjected to
conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the right to external self-determination
through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all
peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised
through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a
right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in
instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case
of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is
attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the
prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland,
international law is neutral on secession -- it does not support a right to secession nor does it
prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to
political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway was and
is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from
the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an
alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean
Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued.
The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not
encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law
does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the
absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's
unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless,
there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view
of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of
Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced remedial arguments
in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in
line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally, we could
not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of
Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue is one of
defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right -- the right to
life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under contemporary
international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin
asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even once in this article is
anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych
-- the overthrow
that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that
there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan
movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that
statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly was a coup
. Furthermore:
even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of
Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in
attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality in
general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e. its
capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress and
crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where
the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the concept of a
"failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must be continued based
on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean "use of
force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given nation's government in order to
suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial integrity, and other fundamental
international legal principles; other states are not released from the obligations with respect to
this state [in other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession movement
within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania.]
It would be impossible for Trump to re-energize his base in any other way. Pelosi acts as
covert agent for Trump re-election? Peloci calculation that she can repar "Mueller effect" of
2018 with this impeachment proved to be gross miscalculation.
Warren who stupidly and enthusiastically jumped into this bandwagon will be hurt. She is such
a weak politician that now it looks like she does not belong to the club. Still in comparison
with Trump she might well be an improvement as she has Trump-like economic program, which Trump
betrayed and neutered. And her foreign policy can't be worse then Trump foreign policy. It is
just impossible.
I am convinced that the Dems are not actually interested or focused on defeating Trump, or
they would adopt an effective strategy. The question I keep wrestling with is, what is the point
to the strategy that is so ineffective?
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water, by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump. ..."
"... fake impeachment procedure ..."
"... For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be what makes for a successful impeachment. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they deserve whatever they believe'. ..."
"... little else can explain the reasoning behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.". ..."
"... "We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy, angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes president. ..."
"... He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy – the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins." ..."
"... We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of the stigma of impeachment. ..."
And so it came to pass, that in the deep state's frenzy of
electoral desperation, the 'impeachment' card was played. The hammer has fallen. Nearly the
entirety of the legacy media news cycle has been dedicated to the details, and not really
pertinent details, but the sorts of details which presume the validity of the charges against
Trump in the first place. Yes, they all beg the question. What's forgotten here is that the use
of this process along clearly partisan lines, and more – towards clearly partisan aims
– is a very serious symptom of the larger undoing of any semblance of stability in the US
government.
The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water,
by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent
to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the
Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar
patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump.
Only in a country that produces so much fake news at the official level, could there be a
fake impeachment procedure made purely for media consumption, with no real or tangible
possible victory in sight.
For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment
possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This
would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term
Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would
reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be
what makes for a successful impeachment.
Don't forget, this impeachment is fake
Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they
deserve whatever they believe'. And her aim appears to be the one who makes them believe
things so that they deserve what she gives them. For little else can explain the reasoning
behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has
assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the
same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill
so that you can find out what is in it.".
In both cases, reality is turned on its head – for rather we will know how the Senate
intends to conduct its procedure as soon as it has the details, which substantively includes
the impeachment documents themselves, in front of them, and likewise, legislators ought to know
what's in a major piece of legislation before they vote either way on it. Pelosi's assault on
reason, however, isn't without an ever growing tide of resentment from within the progressive
base of the party itself.
We have quickly entered into a new era which increasingly resembles the broken political
processes which have struck many a country, but none in living memory a country like the US.
Now elected officials push judges to prosecute their political opponents, constitutional crises
are manufactured to pursue personal or political vendettas, death threats and rumors of coups
coming from media and celebrities being fed talking points by big and important players from
powerful institutions.
This 'impeachment' show really takes the cake, does it not? We will recall shortly after
Trump was elected, narrator for hire Morgan Freeman made a shocking public service
announcement. It was for all intents and purposes, a PSA notifying the public that a military
coup to remove Trump would be legitimate and in order. Speaking about this PSA, and recounting
what was said, would in any event read as an exaggeration, or some allegorical paraphrasing
made to prove a point. Jogging our memories then, Freeman spoke to tens of millions of viewers
on television and YouTube
saying :
"We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy,
angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of
the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes
president.
He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy
– the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to
attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false
information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their
political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins."
This really set the tone for the coming years, which have culminated in this manufactured
'impeachment' crisis, really befitting a banana republic.
It would be the height of dishonesty to approach this abuse of the impeachment procedure as
if until this moment, the US's own political culture and processes were in good shape. Now
isn't the time for the laundry list of eroded constitutional provisions, which go in a thousand
and one unique directions. The US political system is surely broken, but as is the case with
such large institutions several hundreds of years old, its meltdown appears to happen in slow
motion to us mere mortals. And so what we are seeing today is the next phase of this
break-down, and really ought to be understood as monumental in this sense. Once again revealed
is the poor judgment of the Democratic Party and their agents, tools, warlords, and
strategists, the same gang who sunk Hillary Clinton's campaign on the rocks of hubris.
Nancy Pelosi also has poor judgment, and these short-sighted and self-interested moves on
her part stand a strong chance of backfiring. Her role in this charade is duly noted. This
isn't said because of any disagreement over her aims, but rather that in purely objective terms
it just so happens that her aims and her actions are out of synch – that is unless she
wants to see Trump re-elected. Her aims are her aims, our intention is to connect these to
their probable results, without moral judgments.
The real problem for the Democrats, the DNC, and any hopes for the White House in 2020, is
that this all has the odor of a massive backfire, and something that Trump has been counting on
happening. When one's opponent knows what is probable, and when they have a track record for
preparing very well for such, it is only a question of what Trump's strategy is and
how this falls into it, not whether there is one.
Imagine being a fly on the wall of the meeting with Pelosi where it was decided to go
forward with impeachment in the House of Representatives, despite not having either sufficient
traction in the Senate or any way to control the process that the Senate uses.
It probably went like this: ' We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say
he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of
the stigma of impeachment. '
Informed citizens are aware that whatever their views towards Trump, nothing he has done
reaches beyond the established precedent set by past presidents. Confused citizens on the other
hand, are believing the manufactured talking points thrown their way, and the idea that a US
president loosely reference a quid pro quo in trying to sort a corruption scandal in dealings
with the president of a foreign country, is some crazy, new, never-before-done and
highly-illegal thing. It is none of those things though.
Unfortunately, not needless to say, the entirety of the direct, physical evidence against
Trump solely consists of the now infamous transcript of the phone call which he had with
Ukrainian president Zelensky. The rest is hearsay, a conspiracy narrative, and entirely
circumstantial. As this author has noted in numerous pieces, Biden's entire candidacy rests
precisely upon his need to be a candidate so that any normal investigation into the wrongdoings
of himself or his son in Ukraine, suddenly become the targeted persecution of a political
opponent of Trump.
Other than this, it is evident that Biden stands little chance – the same polling
institutions which give him a double-digit lead were those which foretold a Clinton electoral
victory. Neither their methods nor those paying and publishing them, have substantively
changed. Biden's candidacy, like the impeachment, is essentially fake. The real contenders for
the party's base are Sanders and Gabbard.
The Democratic Party Activist Base Despises Pelosi as much as Clinton
The Democratic Party has two bases, one controlled by the DNC and the Clintons, and one
which consists of its energized rank-and-file activists who are clearer in their populism,
anti-establishment and ant-corporate agenda. Candidates like Gabbard and Sanders are closest to
them politically, though far from perfect fits. Their renegade status is confirmed by the
difficulties they have with visibility – they are the new silent majority of the party.
The DNC base, on the other hand, relies on Rachel Maddow, Wolf Blitzer, and the likes for their
default talking points, where they have free and pervasive access to legacy media. In the
context of increased censorship online, this is not insignificant.
Among the important reasons this 'impeachment' strategy will lose is that it will not
energize the second and larger base. Even though this more progressive and populist base is
also more motivated, they have faced – as has the so-called alt-light – an
extraordinarily high degree of censorship on social media. Despite all the censorship, the
Democrats' silent majority are rather well-informed people, highly motivated, and tend to be
vocal in their communities and places of work. Their ideas move organically and virally among
the populace.
This silent majority has a very good memory, and they know very well who Nancy Pelosi is,
and who she isn't.
The silent majority remembers that after years of the public backlash against Bush's war
crimes, crimes against humanity, destruction of remaining civil liberties with the Patriot Act,
torture, warrantless search – and the list goes on and on – Democrats managed to
retake the lower house in 2006. If there was a legitimate reason for an impeachment, it would
have been championed by Pelosi against Bush for going to war using false, falsified,
manufactured evidence about WMD in Iraq. At the time, Pelosi squashed the hopes of her own
electorate, reasoning that such moves would be divisive, that they would distract from the
Democrats' momentum to take the White House in '08, that Bush had recently (?) won his last
election, and so on. Of course these were real crimes, and the reasons not to prosecute may
have as much to do with Pelosi's own role in the war industry. Pelosi couldn't really push
against Bush over torture, etc. because she had been on an elite congressional committee
– the House Intelligence Committee – during the Bush years in office which starting in
2003 was dedicated to making sure that torture could and would become normalized and
entirely legal.
It seems Pelosi can't even go anywhere with this impeachment on Trump today, and therefore
doesn't even really plan to submit it to the Senate for the next stage .
The political stunt was pulled, a fireworks show consisting of one lonely rocket that sort of
fizzled off out of sight.
Trump emerges unscathed, and more to the point, we are closer to the election and his base
is even more energized. Pelosi spent the better part of three years inoculating the public
against any significance being attached to any impeachment procedure. Pelosi cried wolf so many
times, and Trump has made good on the opportunities handed to him to get his talking points in
order and to condition his base to receive and process the scandals in such and such way. This
wouldn't have been possible without Pelosi's help. Thanks in part to Pelosi and the DNC, Trump
appears primed for re-election.
Trump energizes his base, and the DNC suppresses and disappoints theirs. That's where the
election will be won or lost.
This may be a good time to pull on my yellow waters, and take a look at Trump's letter to
Pelosi, since his letter is simultaneously a parting shot as the House votes impeachement, and
--
assuming impeachment doesn't die in the House -- the opening gun not only for his trial in
the Senate but for election 2020.
Here is the letter ; if you have time, it's worth reading it to form your own opinions.
One tip to make reading Trump more tolerable is to hear him as a borscht belt comedian like
Rodney Dangerfield or Henny Youngman.
Clifford A. Rieders , who grew up with enduring memories of the borscht belt, commented in
2016:
The humorists spanned the spectrum from Yiddish-speaking Brooklynites to Midwestern
Protestants. Each comedian had a shtick. What exactly is a shtick? A "shtick" was an
approach, an act, a way of relating to people that could be funny, serious, entertaining or
crass, but always memorable in some way. Donald Trump is surging in the polls because he has
a shtick. He is very much like a borscht belt entertainer, memorable because of how he speaks
and the way he presents himself, rather than his content. The experts will have to parse the
substance of Trump's message, if any, but his entertainment value should not be
underestimated. He is making people sit up and take notice, whether he is hated, loved, or
whether he just makes people shrug their shoulders and giggle.
... ... ...
Even more amazingly, the Times leaves this passage, which occurs immediately before the
passage they corrected, uncorrected:
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and
regardless of the truth, you and your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the
Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other.
One must assume that the Times does not correct what it believes to be true. Therefore,
RussiaGate -- which the Times assiduously propagated, to its great profit -- is "a grave,
malicious, and slanderous lie"? Alrighty then.
Similarly:
What the Times is looking at is a blueprint for Trump's case to the voters in 2020. And yet
the Times can find only two corrections to make? If I were a liberal Democrat, I would be very,
very worried about 2020.
I'm not going to make an armchair diagnosis of Trump's mental state, or shoot fish in a
barrel with factchecking. Rather, I'm going to look at Trump's letter through the lens of his
schtick , or, using the seventy five-cent word, his rhetoric. (I will be the first to
say that Trump is not a superb technician; for an analysis of an orator who is, see NC
here on Julia Gillard .) First, I will show that Trump's letter falls naturally into two
parts: His defense against the indictment, and his 2020 case against the fitness of Democrats
to govern). Given that the text has such a structure, it's simply not tenable to call it an "
unhinged rant ," which disposes of the first mainstream response. Nor it is especially
useful to fact-check it, especially when the facts are so disputed[1], which disposes of the
second. Unfortunately, I cannot annotate the entire six-page letter, but I will comment on the
rhetoric used in each part. Now let's look at the two parts.
Here is the division point between the two parts. Using direct address (" inter se pugnantia "),
Trump writes:
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing
Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
There are two reasons this paragraph marks a division. First, it's the first and only joke (
irony ). Second, it's
the first use of one of Trump's favorite figures: paralipsis , here saying something while pretending that one
does not wish to say it ("unfortunately," my sweet Aunt Fanny).
So, let us turn to the first part, Trump's defense. After some hyperbole about the
Constitution , Trump addresses each claim in the House indictment in turn. On (1) "Abuse of
Power," Trump responds that (A) "I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of
Ukraine," (B) "You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an
impeachable offense", (C) "you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what
Joe Biden has admitted he actually did," and (D) "President Zelensky has repeatedly declared
that I did nothing wrong." On (2), "Obstruction of Congress," Trump responds, (A) "if you make
a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power," (B) "you
have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and
nullify their votes," (C) "Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the
present day", and (D) "You and your party are desperate to distract," followed by the
accomplishedments listed in the second Times "correction" above." I've lettered and numbered
the responses because the structure is perfectly clear to those who are willing to look for it.
(There is a minor Twitter controversy over whether Trump wrote the letter himself, but I would
say he, like any President, has people for that. I think that Trump, for whatever reason, had a
lot more input into part two, for reasons I will show.)
A second feature of the first part is that it's virtually devoid of rhetorical devices:
Tricolon and
anaphora are the
only ones used frequently ("[1] no crimes, [2] no misdemeanors, and [3]
no offenses"; "[1] you are violating your oaths of office, [2] you
are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and [3] you are declaring
open war on American Democracy"; "[1]misquoted, [2]mischaracterized, and [3]fraudulently
misrepresented").
Now let's turn to the second part. Unlike the first part, it can't be represented with an
outline structure. Indeed, it might be considered to be grist for Trump's improvisations and
A/B testing on the trail. From
my post describing Trump's visit to Bangor :
I want to focus on how [Trump] made [his] points: He didn't just emit them in
bulleted-list form. Rather, he treated them as waypoints. He'd state the point, clearly and
loudly, and then begin to move away from it in ever-widening circles, riffing jazzily on
anecdotes, making jokes, introducing other talking points ("We're gonna build the wall"),
introducing additional anecdotes, until finally popping the topical stack and circling back
to the next waypoint, which he would then state, clearly and loudly; rinse, repeat. The
political class considers or at least claims Trump's speeches are random and disorganized,
but they aren't; any speech and debate person who's done improvisation knows what's going
on.
You can just see Trump cutting up bits of part two, revising some, discarding others,
re-arranging them, and so on.
The primary rhetorical device in the second part is tu quoque , colloquially "The pot calling the
kettle black." Here it is combined with anaphora (and a dash of tricolon and alliteration ):
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the
ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice.
You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish
[1] p ersonal, [2] p olitical, and [3]p p artisan gain.
And here Trump combines tu quoque with straight up [A] ad hominem plus [B] mesarchia , [C] tricolon, [D] hyperbole , and [E]
ad populum .
(I have to change the notating system for this one because the devices are so numerous and
interlocked.)
Perhaps most insulting of all is [A]your false display of solemnity. You apparently have
so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that [B] you
are approaching this impeachment [C]somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. [D]No
intelligent person believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the
Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There is no reticence. This is not a
somber affair. [B] You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are
scarcely concealing [C]your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of
patriotic Americans. [E]The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this
[C]empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
Now, tu quoque is indeed a logical fallacy with respect to claims . But is it
a fallacy with respect to the right to govern, which is one way for Trump to structure the 2020
campaign?[1]
...A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox. Trump has form. His schtick has worked, and may well work
again.
It will come as a great shock to the dem establishment, a shock i tell you, that the
reporting they ignored coming from aaron mate and the other tinny (to their ears) voices to
their left was the
revealed truth
and could be wielded like a mighty club against them by trump
only not in the people's interest, because of course not, he's a republican
but anyway, who could have known? /s
as to Trump's charge of Do Nothing Democrats, the Democratic House has passed an entire
agenda of good things that the Senate has not acted upon. Also, is there ANY evidence to
suggest that African American unemployment is at an all time low? A favorite Trump technique
is to issue an obviously false statement as if it were true.
Overall rate, and rates by ethnicity have been declining since 2011, so record or near
record lows are recorded during the Trump years. YMMV as to how much Trump economic policies
have contributed to and/or not impeded the trend.
They have passed a few interesting bills. But how much time have they spent talking about
those bills, and other issues on which they want to move ahead for the people? Compared to
the media time sucked up by TrumpRussia, Impeachment, and the rest of the sh*tshow. I don't
watch any TV news, but to judge from headlines and other coverage I'll guess very little.
Thanks for the analysis. I'm not sure that the bit about the false display of solemnity is
an ad hominem. It seems to me that it would count as a fallacy if he were arguing that the
case against him is flawed for the reason that those making that case are bad people (people
who feign solemnity). But that's not how I read it.
I read it as an attempt to work up anger against his accusers. At one point in the
Rhetoric, Aristotle claims that people become angry with someone when they think they have
been slighted by that person. One way of slighting people is to take them for fools. This is
an insult. If Trump were right and Democrats really were feigning solemnity while gleefully
engaged in a narrowly self-interested effort to overturn an election, then Democrats would be
taking voters for fools. Many voters would find this insulting. Also, Aristotle thought that
angry people are moved to take revenge. This amounts to a desire to bring the insulting party
low. Bringing low, in this case, would surely involve voting against Democrats, punishing
them by keeping them out or throwing them out of high office.
I suppose, then, that this particular passage looks to me like good rhetoric as opposed to
fallacious argument. Or at least partly good. He seems to know what he's doing where pathos
is concerned.
Lambert describes President Trump's style as schtick but another way is to consider it as
a wrestling character named "President Trump." Remember President Trump was involved with the
WWE and had the owners wife Linda McMahon in his cabinet and she is now running a pro-Trump
super PAC.
Having grown up watching professional wrestling President Trump's campaign rallies are
exactly like a wrestling show. He is playing a character and has to be quick thinking and
able to ad-lib to manipulate the crowd's emotions. The crowd also has to become part of the
show as well and overreact to signal to the performer (in this case who happens to be the
President) they are engaged with the show. The baby face (Trump) is cheered loudly and the
heels (Democrats/media) are booed in an exaggerated manner.
This character development and ad-libbing/a b testing is then always in use when dealing
with the media and when tweeting. Since the President is a caricature his followers aren't
bothered by his incorrect statements and when the Democrats/media point out his
mis-statements it doesn't register because everyone knows wrestling is fake.
A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox.
Make America Great Again. Trump trademarked that saying 1 week after the 2012 election. He
isn't crazy he's sly like a fox.
I've been around for a while and my attitude is that all of these "prexies", with the
exception maybe of Ike, have been lying sacks of shit. Now while they all facilitated mass
thievery by their friends and associates (as the mob would say), they could have at least had
the good form to be funny. But no! They were all so earnest and sanctimonious. Kind of like
my parish priest handing out the wafers.
I probably spent way too many hours warming various bar-stools next to a variety of
knuckleheads, so I'm going to give Trump his due, OK? The guy has given me more chuckles,
laughs, guffaws and all around hilarity than six decades worth of well dressed socio-paths.
And as a bonus, a big bonus, he has greatly discomforted all of the smartest grifters in the
room. Whenever I see the guy, Im in the Catskills.
I am convinced that the Dems are not actually interested or focused on defeating Trump, or
they would adopt an effective strategy. The question I keep wrestling with is, what is the
point to the strategy that is so ineffective?
They are perhaps infiltrated by malicious actors, or positioning for something bigger? The
clarity of the critique mentioned above by Aaron Mate to me isn't mysterious or difficult to
find.
How about this:they are preparing for election 2024? I'm not joking.
Rodney Dangerfield? Don Rickles? Our political culture has truly been debased by popular
culture into a stand-up competition. Trump's base knows that he's channeling New Wave/Punk
comedians Sam Kinison and Bobcat Goldthwait.
Whose schtick eventually erased Kinison and the Bobcat's out-of-control nihilism from the
popular culture? The laid-back Jerry Seinfeld as written by Larry David -- yet another reason
to support Bernie Sanders over the other wooden Dem contenders. Did you see the "debate" on
SNL last weekend? Get them on a stage together and Bernie's schtick will slay Trump's
Over a dinner of the "Presidential Cheeseburger" and wedge salad, Mr. Parnas relayed a rumor
that Marie L. Yovanovitch, then the American ambassador to Ukraine, was bad-mouthing the
president -- an unsubstantiated claim that Ms. Yovanovitch has denied, according to two people
with knowledge of the dinner.
The exchange foreshadowed the role that Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman would come to play in Mr.
Trump's Ukrainian campaign.
Less than two weeks later, Mr. Parnas met with another critic of Ms. Yovanovitch,
Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, in his Washington congressional office. Mr. Parnas, who
had recently met Mr. Sessions at a fund-raiser, showed him a map of a crucial pipeline related
to their gas venture, a photo shows.
By the end of the meeting, though, the topic had shifted to Ms. Yovanovitch, and Mr. Parnas
reiterated what he had heard, a person briefed on the meeting said. After the meeting, Mr.
Sessions sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying that Ms. Yovanovitch had spoken
disdainfully of the Trump administration, and suggesting her removal. Mr. Sessions, who lost
his re-election bid last year, has previously said he wrote the letter independently of Mr.
Parnas and Mr. Fruman, after speaking to congressional colleagues.
Federal prosecutors contend in the indictment against Mr. Parnas that he was not just
making small talk but sought to oust Ms. Yovanovitch "at the request of one or more Ukrainian
government officials," which could be a violation of federal laws that require Americans to
register with the Justice Department when lobbying for foreign political interests. The
indictment did not name any Ukrainian officials.
"... Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. ..."
"... The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case. When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion. ..."
"... But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration. ..."
"... Obama told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules, China will " ..."
"... Obama takes as a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack. ..."
Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as
limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. With that in mind,
I had a meeting with a delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians and government officials a couple of weeks ago. I tried to explain
to them why many Americans are wary of helping them by providing lethal, potentially game changing military assistance in what Kiev
sees as a struggle to regain control of Crimea and other parts of their country from militias that are clearly linked to Moscow.
I argued that while Washington should be sympathetic to Ukraine's aspirations it has no actual horse in the race, that the imperative
for bilateral relations with Russia, which is the only nation on earth that can attack and destroy the United States, is that they
be stable and that all channels for communication remain open.
I also observed that the negative perception of Washington-driven
democracy promotion around the world has been in part shaped by the actual record on interventions since 2001, which has not been
positive. Each exercise of the military option has wound up creating new problems, like the mistaken policies in Libya, Iraq and
Syria, all of which have produced instability and a surge in terrorism. I noted that the U.S. does not need to bring about a new
Cold War by trying to impose democratic norms in Eastern Europe but should instead be doing all in its power to encourage a reasonable
rapprochement between Moscow and Kiev. Providing weapons or other military support to Ukraine would only cause the situation to escalate,
leading to a new war by proxies in Eastern Europe that could rapidly spread to other regions.
The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced
the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case.
When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will
have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion.
I explained that Russia does not have the economic or military resources to dominate Eastern Europe and its ambitions appear to
be limited to establishing a sphere of influence that includes "protection" for some adjacent areas that are traditionally Russian
and inhabited by ethnic Russians. Crimea is, unfortunately, one such region that was actually directly governed by Moscow between
1783 and 1954 and it is also militarily vitally important to Moscow as it is the home of the Black Sea Fleet. I did not point that
out to excuse Russian behavior but only to suggest that Moscow does have an argument to make, particularly as the United States has
been meddling in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine where it has "invested" $5 billion, since the Clinton Administration.
I argued that if resurgent Russian nationalism actually endangered the United States there would be a case to be made for constricting
Moscow by creating an alliance of neighbors that would be able to help contain any expansion, but even the hawks in the U.S. Congress
are neither prepared nor able to demonstrate a genuine threat. Fear of the expansionistic Soviet Union after 1945 was indeed the
original motivation for creating NATO. But the reality is that Russia is only dangerous if the U.S. succeeds in backing it into a
corner where it will begin to consider the kind of disruption that was the norm during the Cold War or even some kind of nuclear
response or demonstration. If one is focused on U.S. interests globally Russia has actually been a responsible player, helping in
the Middle East and also against international terrorism.
So there was little to agree on apart from the fact that the Ukrainians have a right to have a government they choose for themselves
and also to defend themselves. And we Americans have in the Ukrainians yet another potential client state that wants our help. In
return we would have yet another dependency whose concerns have to be regarded when formulating our foreign policy. One can sympathize
with the plight of the Ukrainians but it is not up to Washington to fix the world or to go around promoting democracy as a potential
solution to pervasive regional political instability.
Obviously a discussion based on what are essentially conflicting interests will ultimately go nowhere and so it did in this case,
but it did raise the issue of why Washington's relationship with Moscow is so troubled, particularly as it need not be so. Regarding
Ukraine and associated issues, Washington's approach has been stick-and-carrot with the emphasis on the stick through the imposition
of painful sanctions and meaningless though demeaning travel bans. I would think that reversing that formulation to emphasize rewards
would actually work better as today's Russia is actually a relatively new nation in terms of its institutions and suffers from insecurity
about its place in the world and the respect that it believes it is entitled to receive.
Russia
recently celebrated the 70 th anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe. The celebration was boycotted by
the United States and by many Western European nations in protest over Russian interference in Ukraine. I don't know to what extent
Obama has any knowledge of recent history, but the Russians were the ones who were most instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany,
losing 27 million citizens in the process. It would have been respectful for President Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry to
travel to Moscow for the commemoration and it would likely have produced a positive result both for Ukraine and also to mitigate
the concern that a new Cold War might be developing. But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was
a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons
who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration.
And I also would note a couple of other bad choices made during the past several weeks. The Trans-Pacific multilateral trade agreement
that is currently working its way through Congress and is being aggressively promoted by the White House might be great for business
though it may or may not be good for the American worker, which, based on previous agreements, is a reasonable concern. But what
really disturbs me is the Obama explanation of why the pact is important. Obama
told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules,
China will "
Fear of the Yellow Peril might indeed be legitimate but it would be difficult to make the case that an internally troubled China
is seeking to dominate the Pacific. If it attempts to do so, it would face strong resistance from the Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos
and Koreans among others. But what is bothersome to me and probably also to many in the Asian audience is that Obama takes as
a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby
designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack.
And finally there is Iran as an alleged state sponsor of terrorism. President Obama claims that he is working hard to achieve
a peaceful settlement of the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. But if that is so why does he throw obstacles irrelevant
to an agreement out to make the Iranian government more uncomfortable and therefore unwilling or unable to compromise? In an
interview with Arabic
newspaper Asharq al-Awsat Obama called Tehran a terrorism supporter, stating that "it [Iran] props up the Assad regime in
Syria. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It aids the Houthi rebels in Yemen so countries in the region
are rights to be deeply concerned " I understand that the interview was designed to reassure America's friends in the Gulf that the
United States shares their concerns and will continue to support them but the timing would appear to be particularly unfortunate.
The handling of Russia, China and Iran all exemplify the essential dysfunction in American foreign policy. The United States should
have a mutually respectful relationship with Russia, ought to accept that China is an adversary but not necessarily an enemy unless
we make it so and it should also finally realize that an agreement with Iran is within its grasp as long as Washington does not overreach.
It is not clear that any of that is well understood and one has to wonder precisely what kind of advice Obama is receiving when fails
to understand the importance of Russia, insists on "writing the rules" for Asia, and persists in throwing around the terrorist label.
If the past fifteen years have taught us anything it is that the "Washington as the international arbiter model" is not working.
Obama should wake up to that reality before Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush arrives on the scene to make everything worse.
Tom Welsh, May 19, 2015 at 7:02 am GMT • 100 Words
All of this misses the point, IMHO. There is really no need to explain that Russia has no plans to conquer Europe, China has
no plans to take over the Pacific, etc. Anyone with a little historical knowledge and some common sense can see that plainly.
What is happening is that the USA has overweening aspirations to control (and then suck dry) the entire world – and Europe, Russia
and China are next on its hit list.
So it naturally accuses those nations of aspiring to what it plans to do. Standard operating procedure.
The Priss Factor, May 19, 2015 at 7:19 am GMT • 100 Words
"The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now."
I can understand Ukrainian animus against Russia due to history and ethnic tensions.
But that is ridiculous. They can't possibly believe it. I think they're repeating Neocon talking points to persuade American
that the fate of the world is at stake.
It's really just a local affair.
And Crimea would still belong to Ukraine if the crazies in Ukraine hadn't conspired with Neocons like Nuland to subvert and
overthrow the regime.
In May 2016, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, famously proclaimed that, "If
we [Republicans] nominate Trump, we will get destroyed and we will deserve it." Since then,
Graham has become one of President Donald Trump's staunchest defenders, making Graham the
target of critics who paint him as a hypocrite for repeatedly contradicting his previously
expressed stances.
In 2015, for example, Graham called Donald Trump a
"race-baiting xenophobic bigot," but by 2018 he was claiming that he had "never heard [Trump]
make a single racist statement." And in 1999, during impeachment proceedings against
President Bill Clinton (a Democrat), Graham asserted that an
impeachable offense "doesn't even have to be a crime," but then in 2019 Graham
challenged those calling for the impeachment of Trump to "show me something that is a
crime"
President Trump also had words for Pelosi on Monday after the Speaker called for "fairness"
in a Senate trial.
"Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is
crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so," Trump tweeted,
adding "She lost Congress once, she will do it again!"
Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is
crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so. She lost Congress
once, she will do it again!
Pelosi says she will only transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate after Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announces the process they will use for Trump's
trial.
The U.S. Senate trial for the Democratic Party's impeachment of President Donald Trump is in
limbo.
It's because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, pressing the Senate to comply with her demands, has
withheld the articles voted on by House Democrats.
Advertisement - story continues below
Some scholars, including a witness for the Democrats, believe the unprecedented move is
unconstitutional.
After all, that Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall
be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
The Founders inserted no clause giving the House speaker authority to make such demands.
It's why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell believes Pelosi eventually will give up her
power play.
Advertisement - story continues below
Fox News reported McConnell believes Pelosi "seems to think she can dictate the rules of a
Senate impeachment trial."
McConnell, a Republican senator from Kentucky, said on "Fox & Friends," "She apparently
believes she can tell us how to run the trial."
But that is "absurd," he said, saying she'll back down "sooner or later."
"We can't do anything until the speaker sends the papers over, so everybody enjoy the
holidays," McConnell said.
The Fox report explained Pelosi was trying "to pressure the Senate to agree to certain terms
for a trial."
Advertisement - story continues below
"She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but
insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward," the
report said.
She doubled down on Monday, Fox News reported.
"The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the
Senate will conduct," Pelosi said. "President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents
from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What
is his excuse now?"
Pelosi was referring to the contempt of Congress article of impeachment. The White House
argues it has the right to dispute any subpoenas for witnesses or documents and that such
disputes should be resolved in court.
Advertisement - story continues below
McConnell has argued for following the precedent of the Clinton impeachment.
"You listen to the opening arguments, you have a written question period, and at that point,
in the Clinton trial, we had a decision about which witnesses to call and, as you can imagine,
that was a pretty partisan exercise, but we didn't let the partisan part of it keep us from
getting started so all I'm doing is saying what was good for President Clinton is good for
President Trump," McConnell said.
President Trump has been mocking Pelosi's delay in presenting the articles of impeachment to
the Senate. He said the Senate can invalidate the articles if they're not delivered by a
certain date.
The president said on Twitter: "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she
is afraid to present it to the Senate, which can set a date and put this whole SCAM into
default if they refuse to show up! The Do Nothings are so bad for our Country!"
Advertisement - story continues below
McConnell previously dismissed claims by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has been
lobbying for impeachment for months, that the senators overseeing the trial should be
"impartial."
"Do you think Chuck Schumer is impartial? Do you think Elizabeth Warren is impartial? Bernie
Sanders is impartial?" McConnell said.
"So let's quit the charade. This is a political exercise. All I'm asking of Schumer is that
we treat Trump the same way we treated Clinton."
Schumer, contradicting himself, has claimed he could be an impartial juror in the Senate
even though he's already claimed Trump is guilty.
"Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Department of Justice and a constitutional
scholar, has identified 12 impeachable offenses committed by Donald Trump. But, as he notes,
many of these constitutional violations are not unique to the Trump administration. They have
been normalized by Democratic and Republican administrations."
Impeachment blues: Can you believe the empire cant even manage a decent impeachment. There is
a broad debate going on in the crazed land of U$A and it turns on this
contradiction .
THIS empire is a lethal threat to our planet and they cock up all they touch. Can you
believe they held an impeachment hearing in the House of Representatives and didn't have the
accused present? They relied on a whistleblower that was prohibited to attend because he may
be revealed yet everyone knew Ciaramella was the leaker (whistleblower) relying on hearsay
evidence. There are no rules of natural justice in the U$A empire. Mendacity uber
alles.
John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr.
Brennan's emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed
on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former
F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.'s views of a notorious dossier of
assertions about Russia and Trump associates.
... ... ...
Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments,
including May
2017 testimony to Congress , about both the dossier and about any debate among the
intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia's interference, the people said.
... ... ..
"The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories --
baseless conspiracy theories -- in American political history," Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has
long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016,
publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the
bureau did.
Mr. Barr has long been
interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump's behalf,
perhaps the intelligence report's most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported
high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance,
had a moderate degree of confidence.
... ... ...
Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of
Utah, said the C.I.A.'s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow's
intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.
"I don't agree with the conclusion, particularly that it's such a high level of confidence,"
Mr. Stewart said, citing raw intelligence that he said he reviewed.
"I just think there should've been allowances made for some of the ambiguity in that and
especially for those who didn't also share in the conclusion that it was a high degree of
confidence," he added.
Mr. Durham's investigators also want to know more about the discussions that prompted
intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele's allegations in the
appendix of their assessment.
Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the
C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former
director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the
same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump's allies have long
asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence
agency's assessment.
Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out of the assessment,
while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix.
Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week
by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the
F.B.I.'s Russia investigation.
Mr. Steele's information "was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with
the other agencies participating in drafting" the declassified intelligence assessment about
Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele's information with the
team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.
Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials
including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper
about the bureau's efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the
inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be "credible on its face."
... ... ...
Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the
inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele's
information.
Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele's material in the appendix. After
BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment
about Russia's election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper about his
decision to publicly state that the intelligence community "has not made any judgment" about
the document's reliability.
Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the
inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.
"... Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon pulled no punches in an interview with Fox Business Network's Trish Regan saying that the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will be the "trial of the century." ..."
"... Bannon said Republicans ought to "turn the tables" on Democrats and demand a full trial that will force it to go into the Democratic presidential primary. ..."
"... "I think you ought to demand a full trial, where to get witnesses -- and, hey, if it takes too long, it's the Democrats to force this constitutional crisis over the Christmas holidays. If this trial goes on for a month or two into the Democratic primary, that's a tough break for them. They're the ones that forced this. One of the reasons they forced it is their field is so weak going in there. Nobody cares. Like I said, witness protection program. Nobody cares about their debate. They're the ones that force this. " ..."
"... "... this is the managed decline of the United States. This is about the Washington consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week. Two trillion dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the inter-agency consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our countries. With Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has stood up. The reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in Afghanistan. It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. " ..."
Having blasted the liberal elites earlier in the week for
"not giving a f**k" about the average joe in America:
"Look, this is what drives me nuts about the left. All immigration is to flood the zone
with cheap labour, and the reason is because the elites don't give a fuck about African
Americans and the Hispanic working class . They don't care about the white working class
either. You're just a commodity" .
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon pulled no punches in an interview with
Fox Business Network's Trish Regan saying that the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald
Trump will be the "trial of the century."
" I think this trial is going to be the trial of the century, a nd the mainstream media is
going to be all over it," Bannon said.
"That's why I think it's so important not just for his legacy, but for his presidency and
his second term. He's got to engage in this. He's got to take them on. He's got to have the
whistleblower; we have to have the Bidens in front of the nation and the world. They're going
to have to stand and deliver under oath. And we're going to get to the bottom of this . And I
think that's going to lead to an exoneration, not just an acquittal, but an exoneration of
President Trump."
Bannon said Republicans ought to "turn the tables" on Democrats and demand a full trial
that will force it to go into the Democratic presidential primary.
"I think you ought to demand a full trial, where to get witnesses -- and, hey, if it
takes too long, it's the Democrats to force this constitutional crisis over the Christmas
holidays. If this trial goes on for a month or two into the Democratic primary, that's a
tough break for them. They're the ones that forced this. One of the reasons they forced it is
their field is so weak going in there. Nobody cares. Like I said, witness protection program.
Nobody cares about their debate. They're the ones that force this. "
Bannon went on to reiterate his belief that Hillary Clinton will "inevitably" be the
Democratic Presidential nominee... but will lose... again:
" Hillary Clinton comes in at the moment that she feels that she can step in to save the
Democratic Party and try to convince people that a rematch with President Trump is the best
way that they have to try to defeat President Trump," Bannon said.
"They won't beat him. Right now, there's nobody, including Hillary Clinton out there, that
can beat Donald Trump. But they're going to get desperate here because look at tonight.
Nobody cares about this debate, this debate's in Los Angeles."
Finally, the former strategist raged against "the Washington Consensus":
"... this is the managed decline of the United States. This is about the Washington
consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week. Two trillion
dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the inter-agency
consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our countries. With
Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has stood up. The
reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in Afghanistan.
It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. "
And that, Bannon exclaimed, is why we need a trial in the Senate to expose the swamp.
"And they understand that Donald Trump is fighting that. That's why we need a trial, a
real trial and Senate with witnesses. So, before the world, Donald Trump could get his day in
court. "
Trish Regan: I do believe the president heard that she wants to run again from this show,
from none other than Mr. Stephen Bannon here on set with me, who talked about Hillary Clinton
getting back in potentially again. And also, you called Bloomberg as well. So, Bloomberg's in,
is Hillary going to join?
Steve Bannon: I think it's inevitable. They had a poll out today that showed Biden at like
28, Bernie 21, Elizabeth Warren in the high teens. It looks like something that's going to get
to a -- particularly with Super Tuesday, when Biden drops the nuclear weapon of his money on
these in these big states. It's going to lead to a brokered convention. Hillary Clinton, I
think, is going to come in when it's evident that none of the radical left of the Democratic
Party can beat the President Trump --
[cross talk]
Steve Bannon: -- A brokered convention. I think Hillary Clinton comes in at the moment that
she feels that she can step in to save the Democratic Party and try to convince people that a
rematch with President Trump is the best way that they have to try to defeat President Trump.
They won't beat him. Right now, there's nobody, including Hillary Clinton out there, that can
beat Donald Trump. But they're going to get desperate here because look at tonight. Nobody
cares about this debate, this debate's in Los Angeles.
Trish Regan : They should be watching you.
Steve Bannon: Well, I'm talking about on MSNBC and CNN and their networks. They're not
they're not running around saying, this thing is great. They understand these people, not just
are boring, it's not just about their star quality, it's what they're talking about is so off
the mainstream, it's not connecting with people. And they're going to start getting desperate.
Remember, their number one thing is that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the
Democratic Party, to the established order and to the mainstream media, and they will do
anything to take him down and destroy him. In particular, you saw last night what he's talking
about to the people; hey, they're trying to come after you, they're trying to come after me to
get to you. We are in this together. And he saw people respond to that. That response of that
audience last night for two hours, that stood out for hours in, what, 15- or 17-degree cold is
quite remarkable.
Trish Regan: What I find remarkable and, you know, we can say this is a couple Irishmen --
or Irishman and an Irishwoman. You think about traditional Democrats, right? And I think about
my family and how my dad's family was, historically, big Irish Catholic family and you were a
Democrat like you're Catholic. Like, it was part of your religion, right? And, you know, my --
and if you were lucky enough, you got a job in the union. And so, there was a feeling that you
always voted blue, and that has changed.
Steve Bannon: Last night you saw that. He's connected with working class -- listen to this.
It's the reason he won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa. States they never thought
we'd win again. And altogether because he went and he got, you know, Democrats, blue collar
Democrats to vote for it and they believe in it. And they're seeing -- here's the thing they're
seeing, the manifestation of his actions are making their lives better. You know, the Zogby
poll today said that 53 percent of Democrats think that their party is spending too much time
on impeachment instead of getting things done legislatively. It is so --
Trish Regan: And they got that right. And it's not just, you know, we talk about Irish
Americans. I mean, I look at the African American population right now and you look at some of
the poll numbers there. And he's doing extremely well in a way that you wouldn't really think
he would with that particular population, given the media.
Steve Bannon: Well that's what the immigration policy -- remember everything was to make
sure that wasn't more labor pressure on African Americans and Hispanics. That's why you seen
the approval rate -- I think it's 34 percent of African Americans approve now by Pew, and 36
percent of Hispanics. Because you're seeing wages starting to rise. People -- unemployment's at
historic lows, wages starting to rise. That's why I think it's so important, since they've
smeared him in this process. He didn't get to call any witnesses in this trial. And I think
this trial will be -- it's going to be the trial of the century, and the mainstream media is
going to be all over it. That's why I think it's so important not just for his legacy, but for
his presidency and his second term. He's got to engage in this. He's got to take them on. He's
got to have the whistleblower; we have to have the Bidens in front of the nation and the world.
They're going to have to stand and deliver under oath. And we're going to get to the bottom of
this. And I think that's going to lead to an exoneration, not just an acquittal, but an
exoneration of President Trump.
Trish Regan: The trial of the century. Wow. You know, a lot of people are worried, well, you
get John Bolton. What is he going to do? What is John Bolton going to say? And what is this one
going to say? What is that one going to say? What do you say to those concerns?
Steve Bannon: The president -- the call was perfect. He looked at everything that led up to
it. This is why the American people heard him. And you just saw the bureaucrats that were in it
that were testified. This is because that is the managed decline of the United States. This is
about the Washington consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week.
Two trillion dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the
inter-agency consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our
countries. With Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has
stood up. The reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in
Afghanistan. It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. And
they understand that Donald Trump is fighting that. That's why we need a trial, a real trial
and Senate with witnesses. So, before the world, Donald Trump could get his day in court.
Trish Regan: And you call them all. Disruption, right? It is the decade of disruption, and
you're one of the main disruptors there, according to The Wall Street Journal. In fact, one of
the most powerful people here in Washington, the power players. Can we see that? So, you're in
some pretty significant company, there Mr. Bannon.
Steve Bannon: Well, I got the disrupt look on President Trump. As President Trump says, I'm
his top student and that's where the top student got for being the top student. I got my
slot.
Trish Regan: Well, listen, we appreciate you being here tonight for that.
Steve Bannon: Thank you for having me, Trish.
Trish Regan: Very interesting insight, as always, Steve Bannon. I do want to point out to
everyone they can listen to you every day. You can tune into a syndicated radio show and
podcast on iTunes, War Room: Impeachment. Well, that's aptly named. It airs seven days a week.
Forgive me, I was thinking weekdays. Seven days a week, you're on the case.
Steve Bannon: Got to do it. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaking of Steve Bannon, here's what he had to say about Trump and conspiracy theories he
(Bannon) cooked up to distract the rubes and yahoos. From a review of Michael Wolff's book,
Siege: Trump Under Fire:
" . . . Wolff’s guide, the major-domo of Trump’s 2016 campaign who became a
White House adviser until he wasn’t, enjoys tweaking his former boss. Bannon volunteers
that he helped concoct the story that the Mueller investigation was the demon spawn of the
“deep state”, and says there was never much substance to it.
As Wolff tells it, “among the nimblest conspiracy provocateurs of the Trump age,
Bannon spelled out the … narrative in powerful detail”. But then Bannon’s
voice pierces his own self-generated din: “You do realize … that none of this is
true.” Allow that one to sink in.
Wolff also has Bannon calling the Trump Organization a criminal enterprise and
predicting its downfall : “This is where it isn’t a witch-hunt – even
for the hardcore, this is where he turns into just a crooked business guy … Not the
billionaire he said he was, just another scumbag.” Allow that to sink in, too.
Expect Bannon to be quoted by Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the
eventual Democratic candidate. Also look for the Democratic National Committee to send
chocolates to Bannon, once head of Breitbart and a partner in Cambridge Analytica, next
Easter."
Bannon is trying to save the now compromised and degenerated system throughout the West by
reversing the trend line, the social basis for determining a self-reform is there but the
opposing forces are those that manage real power.
Re: Ukraine games and the Democrats. There is much in this article I have not heard before.
Many very specific and therefore potentially testable allegations.
Isikoff is a part of conspiracy to depose Trump. and it shows.
OK. Let's assume that will drag the trial all the
January. Then what ?
If we believe polls it is amazing how brainwashed US public is: to assume that
marionette government has any say in what to do is the upper level of naivety: " Removing Trump from office (a step beyond impeachment) had the support of just under half
(49 percent) of registered voters
in the Yahoo News/YouGov poll . On the factual basis for the two articles of impeachment,
53 percent of registered voters said Trump abused his power in demanding help from Ukraine;
only 40 percent said he did not. Fifty-one percent said the president obstructed Congress;
again, only 40 percent said he did not."
Notable quotes:
"... Michael Isikoff was involved with Clinton and the Russian Dossier. ..."
A House Democrat who played a key role in the impeachment of President Trump says the House
should not "roll over" and quickly present the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a
trial that would amount to a "farce."
"We're not going to participate in a process that makes a mockery out of the Constitution,"
said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, who presented the
panel's case for impeachment to the House Rules Committee. Raskin has been widely mentioned as
a candidate to be one of the House managers to prosecute the case in an impeachment trial in
the Senate. "We are not gonna roll over and say, yeah, you can give us some drive-through
justice with one afternoon where everything is dealt with on a motion to dismiss and no
evidence is heard.
"My position is that, so long as they do not make the most minimal provisions for a fair
trial, then we should not participate in a farce."
Although Raskin emphasized he was speaking for himself, his comments on the Yahoo News
"Skullduggery" podcast illustrate the competing pressures House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is under
from her own caucus in the aftermath of the historic vote to impeach the president, which was
supported by virtually all House Democrats -- and not a single Republican. Public opinion among
registered voters shows a narrow (50-45)
plurality favoring impeachment , according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
After the passage of the two articles of impeachment on Wednesday evening -- one for abuse
of power, the other for obstruction of Congress -- Pelosi has held off presenting them to the
Senate, citing doubts that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will permit a "fair" trial.
McConnell has said he will coordinate his efforts with the White House and has made up his mind
not to vote for conviction. Removal of the president requires a two-thirds majority in the
Senate, which Republicans control by a 53-47 margin.
Pelosi's move -- as the House adjourned for a two-week holiday break on Thursday -- has
created a new layer of uncertainty over when, or even if, the Senate will actually try the
president. Republicans have already jumped over Pelosi's tactics, accusing her of political
gamesmanship that undermines the solemnity with which Democrats presented the case against the
president.
But Raskin, one of the House's more progressive members, says it is McConnell's own comments
-- vowing to work with White House lawyers to ensure the acquittal of the president -- that
have made a mockery of impeachment.
"To say that you're not going to look at the evidence or the facts would get you
disqualified from every jury pool in the United States of America," Raskin said. "If you were
in a voir dire and the judge said to you, 'Will you pay attention to the facts? Will you pay
attention to the evidence? Will you pay attention to the law?' and you say, 'No. I've already
made up my mind,' you would be dismissed immediately."
Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo were blocked from appearing before the House during its
impeachment hearings by a White House claim that any conversations they had with the president
were shielded by executive privilege. Trump's defenders say the House could have tried to
compel their testimony by subpoena. But the certainty that White House lawyers would have
fought those subpoenas all the way up to the Supreme Court would have put off action until well
into next year, Raskin said.
"It just takes a very long time."
Raskin acknowledged that impeachment by its nature is both a judicial and political process
-- and that Pelosi's maneuvering is intended at least in part to put public heat on McConnell
to accede to the demand for witnesses.
"We want the country to put serious pressure on the Senate to conduct the trial with
seriousness," Raskin said. "And the polls show, for example, on the question of witnesses, that
even though I think only 51 percent or 52 percent of the people are declaring themselves right
now in favor of impeachment and removal, like 70 percent of the people are saying, 'Yes, the
president should make all witnesses available.'"
Removing Trump from office (a step beyond impeachment) had the support of just under half
(49 percent) of registered voters
in the Yahoo News/YouGov poll . On the factual basis for the two articles of impeachment,
53 percent of registered voters said Trump abused his power in demanding help from Ukraine;
only 40 percent said he did not. Fifty-one percent said the president obstructed Congress;
again, only 40 percent said he did not.
How effective Pelosi's strategy will be is far from clear. While President Trump is seeking
a quick Senate trial in January so he can proclaim vindication as he runs for reelection,
McConnell has suggested he is happy to forget the whole thing. "Do you think this is leverage,
to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he said to reporters this week. And with those
words, noted New York Times reporter Carl Hulse, the Senate majority leader " cracked a
broad smile outside the Senate chamber in a departure from his usual dour expression."
yesterday
Michael Isikoff was involved with
Clinton and the Russian Dossier. ThisSkullduggeryGroup is
another TokyoRoseYellowJournalistic attempt at presenting
propagandist commentaries as news articles.
Isekoff has replaced Marrissa Mayer
at Yawho News that's all.
There are many fake posters on the
message boards. They are not really fellow U.S.Citizens
and can easily be recognized by their one line insults
that have nothing to do with debate and only to do with
creating a hostile environment between so called liberals
and so called conservatives who I prefer to call
U.S.Citizens. Our differences are not that far apart but
there are Globalist, Anarchist, and other forces in this
country and outside of this country that would love to
see our country collapse and that we also discard our
Constitution and our freedoms protected under that
document.
Cass Sunstein
ObolaCzar proposed government
'infiltrate' social network sitesCassSunstein wants
agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards.
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
Just prior to his appointment as
President Obama's so-called regulatory czar,CassSunstein
wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government
should "infiltrate" social network websites, chat rooms
and message boards.Such "cognitive infiltration,"Sunstein
argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban
on "conspiracy theorizing."
Major Obama donor and former Google
executive Marissa Mayer will take the helm at Yahoo! as the
company's new CEO Tuesday In May, Neilsen listed
theYahooABC NewsNetwork as the leading news site on the
Web in the U.S., makingMayer the head of the
largest news site on the Web.
She
is also a major donor to both PresidentBarackObama and
the DemocraticParty.According to the Center for
ResponsivePolitics; in April 2011Mayer donated two
separate amounts of $2,500 dollars to Obama, and one
large sum of $30,800 to the Democratic National
committee.
Data from political data firm Aristotle, as
reported by the HuffingtonPost, reveals that, in the
second quarter of 2011,Mayer also contributed $35,800 to
Obama Victory Fund 2012.
Asked whether Mayer's political
leanings would not affect the editorial direction ofYahoo!, Yahoo nor Mayer returned The DC's request for
comment by the time of publication. [Full
Disclosure:TheDCandYahoo! have an editorial partnership.]
Well, maybe if Nancy used her
position to actually help the American economy instead of
using her political position to line the pockets of
herself, her husband and their cronies, she might have
remained Speaker.
Why do I say that ? Since Nancy has been "serving" the
nation in D.C., she has increased her personal wealth by
$100 MILLION. Not a typo. How did she do that ? According
to various bios, "good investing". What that really means
is insider trading. You, I and Martha Stewart go to jail
if we get caught doing that, but it was perfectly okay
for members of congress until exposed and the passing of
S.T.O.C.K ( Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge ) Act
in April 2012. The Act prohibited the use of non-public
information for private profit, including insider trading
by members of Congress and other government employees.
But, thanks to Nancy's piggish greed and abuse of her
position, she bought stocks in at least 8 Initial Public
Offerings (IPOs), with insider knowledge. If you have any
friends in the securities industry, ask them how
difficult it is to get in on even one IPO, let alone
eight. Pelosi’s husband’s purchase of shares in the 2008
initial public offering by Visa Inc as Congress was
considering new credit card regulations. Within two days
of the Visa offering, the 5,000 shares purchased by Paul
Pelosi had risen $20 each.
Nancy's greed led to the addition of the "Pelosi
Provision" to the S.T.O.C.K. Act.
The Pelosi provision prohibits members of Congress,
executive branch officials and their staffs from
receiving special access to initial public offerings
because of their position.
So, Nancy "led" a House that was in power during 10%
Unemployment. Lost control of the House while a Democrat
was in the White House and Democrat majority in the
Senate.
Meanwhile, Nancy was looking out for #1, big time.
"... Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown on
the "Nazis"? ..."
"... I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the term
"Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic. ..."
"... What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing? ..."
"... I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain a slow-burning
conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue to avoid the Ukraine.
..."
The recent Paris summit and the few days following the summit have brought a lot of clarity about the future of the Minsk Agreements.
Short version: Kiev has officially rejected them (by rejecting both the sequence of steps and several crucial steps). For those interested,
let's look a little further.
First, what just happened
First, here are the key excerpts from the Paris Conference and from statements made by "Ze" and his superior, Arsen Avakov right
after their return to Kiev:
The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures
of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their
full implementation ( ) The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact
Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk
and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order
to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis .They consider it necessary to incorporate the "Steinmeier formula" into the Ukrainian
legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.
President 'Ze' statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation) source
" The most difficult question is the question of the transfer of the border control to Ukraine. It's very funny, because
its our border and the transfer of the control to us. But, it's a weak sport, the Achilles' heel of the Minsk Agreement." "It's
what was signed by us, unfortunately. We can discuss this for a very long time. Possibly, the conditions were as such." "But we
signed that we will get the control over our border only after the elections on the temporarily occupied territories." "We dedicated
a very long time to this question, we discussed it in details, we have a very different positions with the president of
Russia ." "But this is the Minsk position, we have to understand this. I only like one thing, that we started talking about
this. We agreed that we will continue talking about this in details and with the different variations during our next meeting."
"This is also a victory, because we will have a meeting in four months."
Q. What do you think, is it possible to change the Minsk Agreement? source
" This will be very difficult to do, but we have to do it. We have to change it . First, we have to understand
that it's been over four years since the Minsk Agreement was signed. Everything changes in our life. We have to understand that
it wasn't my team that signed the Minsk Agreement, but we as a power have to fulfill the conditions that our power at the time
agreed back then. But? I am sure that some things we will be able to change. We will be changing them." "Because the transfer
of the Ukraine's border after our control only after the elections, – it's not our position. I said about this don't know how
many times, but this is the final decision ."
Arsen Avakov's statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation):
" The philosophy of the border control the part of the border that we don't have control over is 408 kilometers. It's not that
easy to take it over, to equip it, even to get there across the enemy territories. It's a procedure. As a compromise, we offered
the following scheme: we will start taking the border under our control stating with the New Year, little by little, reducing the
length of the border that is not controlled by us, and a day before the local election we will close the border, we will close this
bottleneck. And this way will get the control over the border. Why isn't this a good compromise? Considering, that at the same time
according to the Steinmeier Formula, they have to disarm all the illegal armed formations of this pseudo-state DNR. This is how we
see the compromise."
In other words, both the official President and real President of the Ukraine agree: the Ukraine will not implement the Minsk
Agreements as written, made law by the UNSC and clarified by the so-called Steinmeier Formula.
Ukrainian propagandists on Russian TV (yes, Urkonazi and hardline nationalist propagandists do get air time on Russian TV on a
daily basis – for an explanation why, see here and here ) went into damage
control mode and explained it all away by saying " these are only words, what matters is what Zelenskii signed in Paris ".
They are wrong. First of all, statements made in their official capacity by the President or the Minister of Internal Affairs do
represent OFFICIAL policy statements. Second, this explanation completely overlooks the reason why Ze and Avakov said these things.
That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Urkonazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did, in
spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all we see
is Poroshenko 2.0.
So in the behind-the-scenes (but very real) struggle between the Zionist camp (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii) and the Urkonazi camp
(Avakov and Poroshenko), the latter have successfully taken control of the former and now the chances for saving a unitary Ukraine
are down to, maybe not quite zero, but to something like 0.0000001% (I leave that one under the heading "never say never" and because
I have been wrong in the past).
So what happens next?
That is the interesting question. In theory, the Normandy Four will meet again in 4 months. But that assumes that some progress
was made. Well, it is possible that in a few sections of the line of contact there will be an OSCE supervised withdrawal of forces.
But, let's be honest here, the people have seen many, many such promised withdrawals, and they all turned out to be fake. Either
the Ukronazis return to the neutral zone (claiming huge victories over the (sic) "Russian armed force"), or they resume bombing civilians,
or they never even bother to change position. Any withdrawal is a good thing if it can save a single life! But no amount of withdrawals
will settle anything in this conflict.
Second, there are A LOT of Ukrainian politicians who now say that the citizens of the LDNR have to "return" to Russia if they
don't like the Urkonazi coup or its ideology. They either don't realize, or don't care, that there are very few Russian volunteers
in Novorussia and that the vast majority of the men and women who compose the LDNR forces are locals. These locals, by the way, get
the Ukie message loud and clear: you better get away while you can, because when we show up you will all be prosecuted for terrorism
and aiding terrorists, that is ALSO something the Urkonazis like to repeat day after day. By the way, while in Banderastan all Russian
TV channels are censored, and while they also try to censor the Russian language Internet, in Novorussia all the Ukrainian (and Russian)
TV stations are freely available. So as soon as some Nazi freak comes out and says something crazy like "we will create filtration
camps" (aka concentration camps) this news is instantly repeated all over Novorussia, which only strengthens the resolve of the people
of the LDNR to fight to their death rather than accept a Nazi occupation..
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not have
the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested. Whatever the case may be, it's now over, we are back
to square one.
The most likely scenario is a "slow freezing" of the conflict meaning now that Kiev has officially and overtly rejected the Minsk
Agreements, there will be some minor, pretend-negotiations, maybe, but that fundamentally the conflict will be frozen.
That will be the last nail in the coffin of the pro-EU, pro-NATO so-called "Independent Ukraine", since the most important condition
to try to salvage the Ukrainian economy, namely peace, is now gone. Furthermore, the political climate in the Ukraine will further
deteriorate (the hated Nazi minority + an even worse economic crisis are a perfect recipe for disaster).
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement. That
means that the LDNR will separate from the rump-Ukraine and, on time, rejoin Russia. Good bye Banderites and Urkonazis!
The rump-Ukraine will eventually break-up further: Crimea truly was the "jewel of the Black Sea" and its future appears to be
extremely bright while the Donbass was the biggest source of raw materials, energy, industry, high-tech, etc. etc. etc.). What is
left of the Ukraine is either poor and under-developed (the West) or needs to reopen economic ties with Russia (the South).
Besides, Zelenskii and his party are now trying to rush a new law through the Rada which will allow the sale of Ukrainian land
to private interests (aka foreign interests + a local frontman). As a result, there is now a new "maidan" brewing, pitting Iulia
Timoshenko and other nationalist leaders against Zelenskii and his party. This could become a major crisis very fast, especially
now that is appears that Zelenskii will also renege on this promise to call for a national referendum on the issue of the sale/privatization
of land .
As for the Russians, they already realize that Ze is a joke, unsurprisingly so since he is a comic by trade, and that the Ukrainians
are "not agreement capable". They will treat him like they did Poroshenko in the last years: completely ignore him and not even take
his telephone calls. Right now, there is just a tiny bit of good will left in Moscow, but it is drying up so fast that it will soon
totally disappear. Besides, the Russians really don't care that much anymore: the sanctions turned out to be a blessing, time is
on Russia's side, the Ukronazis are destroying their own state and, finally, the important stuff for Russia is happening in Asia,
not the West.
The Europeans will take a long time to come to terms with two simple facts:
Russia was never a party to this conflict (if she had, it would have been over long ago). The Ukronazis are the ones who won't implement
the Minsk Agreements
This means that the politicians who were behind the EU's backing of the Euromaidan (Merkel) will have to go before their successors
can say that, oops, we got our colors confused, and white is actually black and black turned out to be white. That's okay, politicians
are pretty good at that. The honeymoon between Kiev and Warsaw on the one hand and Berlin on the other will soon end as bad times
are ahead.
Macron looks much better, and he will probably pursue his efforts to restore semi-normal relations with Russia, for France's sake
first, but also eventually the rest of the EU. The Poles and the Balts will accuse him of "treason" and he will just ignore them.
As for Trump, he will most likely make small steps towards Russia, but most of his energy will be directed either inwards (impeachment)
or outwards (Israel), but not towards the Ukrainian conflict. Good.
Conclusion
It's over. Crimea and the Donbass are gone forever, the first is de jure , the latter merely de facto . The rump-Ukraine
is completely unconformable (barring some kind of coup followed by a government of national unity supported Moscow – I consider this
hypothesis as highly unlikely).
If you live in the West, don't expect your national media to report on any of this. They will be the LAST ones to actually admit
it (journos have a longer shelf life than politicians, it is harder for them to make a 180).
PS: to get a feeling for the kind of silly stunts the "Ze team" is now busying itself with, just check this one: they actually
tried to falsify the Ukrainian version of the Paris Communique. For details, see Scott's report here: https://thesaker.is/kiev-attempted-to-change-the-letter-and-meaning-of-paris-summit-communique/
. If the Ukraine was a Kindergarten, then "Ze" would be a perfect classroom teacher or visiting entertainer. But for a country
fighting for its survival, such stunts are a very, very bad sign indeed!
(*rump-Ukraine: In broad terms, a "rump" state is what remains of a state when a portion is carved away. Expanding on the "butcher"
metaphor, the rump is what is left when the higher-value cuts such as rib roast and loin have been removed.)
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not
have the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested.
Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown
on the "Nazis"?
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement.
So what is the Ukrainian thinking here -- that they are better off simply cutting bait on the east and letting Russia deal
with the headache of the Donbass's antiquated infrastructure? And that a truncated Ukraine would at least be mostly free of internal
pro-Russian sentiment?
I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the
term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic.
What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing?
I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain
a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue
to avoid the Ukraine.
"That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Ukronazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did,
in spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all
we see is Poroshenko 2.0."
This is interesting. It implies z actually meant what he said in order to gain votes to get elected. In fact, he is very similar
to trump in this respect. Lied about desiring an end to the conflict (conflicts in the case of trump), but once in office continued
the aggressive policies (and expanded them in the case of trump). Actually, if one considers poroshenko as the ukraine version
of obama/clinton and zelinsky as trump, it looks like the ukrainian regime is following in the footsteps of the american regime.
It's not just Minsk that has been abandoned by the Kiev junta. Kiev itself has been abandoned by the EU, which now looks to Nordstream-2
for its energy supplies from Russia, thus bypassing the thieves in Ukraine. Even sanctions from the Supreme Sanctioner in DC is
not going to persuade the Germans to shiver in the winter.
Where is AOC in all this? She was the prime mover on impeachment, specifically impeachment
over a phone call rather than concentration camps and genocide.
And now with impeachment she gave Pelosi cover to sell the country out again.
I was wondering why many libreral centrists were expreasing admiration for her, a
socialist. Maybe they recognized something?
"Prime mover"? What planet are you from? They were Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi. Did you
miss that Russiagate was in motion while AOC was still tending bar? AOC isn't even on any of
the key committees (Judiciary and Intel).
I shouldn't have said THE prime mover, but ONE OF the prime movers in the House in
actually pushing it over the line against Pelosi's opposition. It seems like the House Dem
consensus ever since Russiagate was just to tease their base with it and milk the suspense
for all it was worth, until AOC, among others, rallied the base.
There were other reps who pushed for impeachment, but AOC has one of the biggest platforms
and crucially, expanded popular support for impeachment outside the MSNBC crowd. So yes, a
key figure in the political/PR effort to move from conspiracy theories to actual
impeachment.
"AOC is one of the highest-profile members of Congress and she blasted Pelosi for
resisting impeachment since May."
Liz Warren is the one who made it a part of her campaign before anyone else. Rashida
Tlaib was the one who made t-shirt with her "impeach the mf'er" quote on it. A lot of them
were "blasting" Pelosi for dithering. AOC also "blasted" her for giving ICE more money and a
lot of their things .
Your central focus on AOC for the impeachment fiasco while ignoring her active role in
spotlighting so many other issues of importance which no one else speaks about is
interesting. Did you catch any of her speaking at the Sanders rally in LA today? Any other
"high profile" Dems pushing such important issues and campaigns?
Thanks for this comment. I don't trust *any of them* except Sanders, but AOC has been
making more good noises than bad, and to claim that it was she who's been driving Pelosi to
impeachment is quite a stretch. Poor, helpless/hapless Rep. Pelosi sure.
Pelosi has repeatedly stared down the progressives in the House. The overwhelming majority
of the freshmen reps are what used to be called Blue Dogs, as in corporate Dems. AOC making
noise on this issue would not move Pelosi any more than it has on other issues.
IMHO Pelosi didn't try to tamp down Russiagate, and that created expectations that
Something Big would happen. Plus she lives in the California/blue cities bubble.
What Dem donors think matters to her way more than what AOC tweets about. If anything,
Pelosi (secondarily, I sincerely doubt this would be a big issue in her calculus) would view
impeachment as a way to reduce the attention recently given to progressive issues like single
payer and student debt forgiveness.
"... It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees. ..."
"... Nor is any Republican Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, which thus is not really our "ally." ..."
"... The sole retort from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So there! ..."
"... Senate Demaggotic Leader Chuck Schumer gave the game away when he demanded that the World Greatest Deliberative Body receive testimony from cashiered National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney but not from the man at the center of the whole Ukraine "drug deal" (as Bolton described it): Rudy Giuliani. ..."
For a century and a half American political life has been the exclusive preserve of the
duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, also known as
the Evil Party and the Stupid Party . (If something is both Evil and Stupid, we call that
"Bipartisan.") But the familiar Evil-Stupid dichotomy doesn't even begin to describe the
descent into national dysfunction and galloping irrationality that characterizes the Trump
impeachment hysteria.
Media chatter now centers on the nuts-and-bolts questions of "what's next?" Will House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? (Yes. Even one of the
legal "scholars" enrolled in the impeachment lynch mob avers that
Trump isn't actually impeached until the Senate receives the articles .) Who will be the
trial managers? (Who cares.) Will there be a "real trial," with witnesses? (It hardly matters.)
Will Trump be removed? (Unlikely unless some bolt from the blue flips 20 GOP Senators.) Will
impeachment be the Democrats' albatross going into November 2020? (Most polls show independents
are turned off, but there's still almost a year to go.)
None of these questions, which are meaningful only in a mental universe of the Evils and the
Stupids shadowboxing over a partisan allocation of political spoils, touch upon the grim
– and occasionally sardonic – symptoms of America's seemingly unstoppable terminal
slide.
With Trump's impeachment it's time to say goodbye to yesteryear's Team Evil and Team Stupid.
Say hello in 2020 to Team Maggot and Team Corpse!
In short, Democrats hate Trump not so much for what he's done (which, contrary to what his
passionate supporters think based on his Tweets, isn't much) but as an expression of an
amorphous dread that by some mysterious populist alchemy he might still breathe life back into
the Corpse Party's deplorable base.
With that in mind, here are a few things to note as we cruise on into Bizarro World
:
As the impeachment spectacle unfolded in the House, one could not fail to be touched by the
hushed, heartfelt reverence with which Democrat after Democrat cited the sage words of the
Founding Fathers: Madison especially, but also Jefferson and Washington. No doubt they can
hardly wait for this spectacle to be over so they can go back to denouncing the Founders as
dead, racist, Christian, patriarchal, " Anglo
," and (presumably) heterosexual slaveholders
in wigs and knee-breeches whose memory should be expunged from the historical record . It's
instructive to glance at the members of
the House Judiciary Committee who – solemnly, reluctantly, and prayerfully, they
assure us! – voted out articles of impeachment in the name of "the American people." But
which "people" might that be? Of the 23 Democrats who voted, only four even arguably fit the
heritage American, male profile of the Founding Fathers. The " gender
balance " (as it's ungrammatically called nowadays) on the voting majority side of the
Committee is 12-11. That's not quite up to
Barack Obama's exhortation that "every nation on earth" should be "run by women ," but it's
progress in that direction! (Just imagine how much more serene the world would be if all
countries were ruled by peaceniks like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Michèle Flournoy, Evelyn Farkas, etc., plus
a
bevy of Deep State Democrats now installed in Congress .) By contrast, the 17 Republicans
on the Committee have approximately the same demographic composition they'd have had in 1950
– and aside from the inclusion of two women, that of the First Congress seated in
1789.
In short, in the Congressional Maggot Caucus the approaching
Dictatorship of Victims defined by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language,
religion, migratory status, etc., is already becoming a reality, and they voted to get rid of
Trump. Members of the Corpse Caucus defending him still belong demographically and morally to
the declining legacy America, though they'd never, ever admit it. Impeachment is thus more than
just the latest iteration of the years-long anti-constitutional coup to overturn a presidential
election,
though it is that too . Even more fundamentally, it's a coup against the people whose
identity, traditions, and values the Constitution was intended to ensure for themselves and
their posterity.
Foreign interference in our deMOCKracy.
Even more absurd than Democrats' presumption in lip-synching the venerable principles of an
American constitutional tradition they despise almost as much as they loathe the ethnos that
ordained and established it is their feigned horror – horror! – that Trump's phone
chat with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky realized the Founders' worst fears of foreign influence
over American domestic politics. Leaving aside the fact that Ukraine under Zelensky's
predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, did try to queer the 2016 election in favor of Hillary, and that
Hunter and Joe Biden are crooks, the Maggoteers' ability to maintain a straight face of shocked
indignation smack in the middle of a souk, a flea market, a bazaar where both domestic and
foreign interests buy, sell, and trade favors like vintage baseball cards is nothing less than
heroic.
Argentina Caucus, Armenian Issues Caucus, Azerbaijan Caucus, Bangladesh Caucus, Bosnia
Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Cambodia Caucus, Central America Caucus, Colombia Caucus,
Congressional Caucus on Bulgaria, Croatian Caucus, Czech Caucus, Ethiopian-American Caucus,
Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka, EU Caucus, Friends of Australia Caucus, Friends of
Denmark Caucus, Friends of Egypt Caucus, Friends of Finland Caucus, Friends of Ireland
Caucus, Friends of Liechtenstein Caucus, Friends of New Zealand Caucus, Friends of Norway
Caucus, Friends of Scotland Caucus, Friends of Spain Caucus, Friends of Sweden Caucus,
Friends of the Dominican Republic Caucus, Friends of Wales Caucus, Georgia Caucus, Hellenic
Caucus, Hellenic Israel Alliance Caucus, House Baltic Caucus, Hungarian Caucus, India and
Indian Americans Caucus, Iraq Caucus, Israel Allies Caucus, Israel Victory Caucus, Kingdom of
Netherlands Caucus, Korea Caucus, Kyrgyzstan Caucus, Macedonia and Macedonian-American
Caucus, Moldova Caucus, Mongolia Caucus, Montenegro Caucus, Morocco Caucus, Nigeria Caucus,
Pakistan Caucus, Peru Caucus, Poland Caucus, Portuguese Caucus, Qatari-American Strategic
Relationships Caucus, Republican Israel Caucus, Romania Caucus, Serbian Caucus, Slovak
Caucus, Sri Lanka Caucus, Taiwan Caucus, UK Caucus, Ukraine Caucus, U.S.-Bermuda Friendship
Caucus, U.S.-China Working Group, U.S.-Japan Caucus, U.S.-Kazakhstan Caucus, U.S.-Lebanon
Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish
American, Uzbekistan Caucus, Venezuela Democracy Caucus
Recalling
Your Working Boy 's years at the State Department – where there still exists no
"American Interests Section" – the reader can search the above in vain for anything that
looks remotely like "Friends of the United States of America."
In fact, the Democrats' core impeachment narrative – Russia bad, Ukraine good –
is itself an example to which American policy is in the grip of foreign antipathies and
attachments against which the
Father of Our Country warned us in his 1796 farewell address :
"[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in
place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which
indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest."
"[W]e should care about our allies. We should care about Ukraine. We should care about a
country struggling to be free and a Democracy. We used to care about Democracy. We used to
care about our allies. We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. We used to. I know the party
of Ronald Reagan used to. 'Why should we care about Ukraine?' But of course it's about more
than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about our national security. Their fight is our fight.
Their defense is our defense. When Russia remakes the map of Europe for the first time since
World War II by dint of military force [ JGJ : Well, there was Kosovo, but never mind ] and
Ukraine fights back, it is our fight too."
Indeed, one wonders how hysterical Democrats missed accusing Trump outright of treason ,
which actually is specified as grounds for impeachment in
Article II, Section 4 . After all, as described by Schiff, didn't Trump's actions
constitute (under Article
III, Section 3 ) "adhering" to our evil enemies the Russians, and "giving them aid and
comfort"? It's an open and shut case of a capital crime – and the
House Majority Whip is ready to get the rope ! (Really, how did the Democrats miss this?
Maybe GOP stupidity has migrated to the other side of the aisle )
It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's
framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military,
intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees.
Nor is any Republican
Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine,
which thus is not really our "ally." Partisanship is the variable; Russophobia is the constant.
The sole retort
from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the
Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So
there!
Thus, even with Trump's almost (at this point) certain survival of a Senate impeachment
trial, the relevant foreign inveterate antipathies and passionate attachments will remain
entrenched. (Not just in the case of Ukraine/Russia but with respect to the rest of the world
our habitual hatreds and fondnesses remain firmly in place and are unlikely to change for the
balance of Trump's presidency, if ever. Trump's
Korea initiative is on life support. Israel/Iran is a flashpoint that could explode at any
time : "Israel, even less than the US, cannot take casualties. A couple of bull's eyes, a
lot of Israelis go back to Brooklyn. The 82 million people in Iran have no place else to
go.")
If there was anyone who should have been impeached, it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin
Powell and George Tenet, who was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom, for assisting
Cheney in the Iraq WMD lies.
But...what did Nancy say then?
Nancy Pelosi: I Knew Bush Jr Was Lying About WMD To Start War, But Didn't See It As
Impeachable
But there are multiple reasons not to delay a Senate trial past that window. The most common
argument in favor of this tactic is that it would give Democrats some sort of leverage as the
process moves beyond their control. "As a tactical matter, it could strengthen Senate Minority
Leader Charles E. Schumer's (D-N.Y.) hand in bargaining over trial rules with McConnell because
of McConnell's and Trump's urgent desire to get this whole business behind them," Tribe argued
earlier this week. House Democratic leaders have made similar suggestions in recent
days.
The last three years suggest that the majority leader would be more than happy to keep
running the Senate as a judicial-confirmation factory and a legislative graveyard.
This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it assumes that McConnell actually wants the
Senate to hold an impeachment trial for Trump. The last three years suggest that the majority
leader would be more than happy to keep running the Senate as a judicial-confirmation factory
and a legislative graveyard. It's doubtful that any other Republican senators are thrilled
about the prospect of acting as the president's jurors, either. Given the choice between
holding a trial that could force vulnerable members of his caucus to make uncomfortable votes
and not holding a trial at all, it seems more likely that McConnell would choose the
latter. Second, it assumes that Trump also wants to, in Tribe's words, "get this whole
business behind [him]." There's a certain logic to the proposition that Trump is eager to tell
his supporters that he was acquitted in a Senate trial. But I doubt that eagerness outweighs
his desire not to undermine his own case in said trial. After all, if Mulvaney or Bolton could
give testimony that would exculpate Trump in the Ukraine scandal, the president would have
frog-marched them to the House Intelligence Committee himself last month. (The idea that Trump
truly cares about the separation of powers, as his lawyers argued when blocking those witnesses
from testifying, is contradicted by the rest of his presidency.)
The other half of Tribe's argument is also unconvincing. In making the case for withholding
the articles, he argues that it would vindicate higher civic and democratic ideals. "On a
substantive level, [the House] would be justified to withhold going forward with a Senate
trial," Tribe wrote. "Under the current circumstances, such a proceeding would fail to render a
meaningful verdict of acquittal. It would also fail to inform the public, which has the right
to know the truth about the conduct of its president."
"... My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden. ..."
"... Amfortas the hippie , December 21, 2019 at 5:40 pm ..."
"... that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday, again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides. ..."
"... "let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from whats really important " ..."
"... Hepativore , December 21, 2019 at 6:49 pm ..."
"... Happy winter Solstice, everyone! ..."
"... Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure to stop Sanders at all costs. ..."
Please bone up on US procedure. It's not good to have you confuse readers.
The Senate can't do anything until the House passes a motion referring the impeachment to
the Senate. The House ALSO needs to designate managers as part of that process.
Michael
Tracey argued that it's only Senate rules that require that the House formally transmit
the impeachment verdict. The Constitution says that the Senate has to try an impeached
president, and the Constitution trumps the Senate's rules. Logically, then, the Senate could
just modify its rules to try the president.
But the whole delay is weird and impeachment has only been done twice before, so not a lot
of precedent.
My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as
to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden.
that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday,
again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides.
"let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from
whats really important "
Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a
one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence
of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure
to stop Sanders at all costs. Plus, if the Democrats get the brokered convention they
are after, he can bow out, satisfied that he helped the DNC protect the donor class from the
Sanders threat.
The impeachment, what it means, panic in the establishment, as justice continues to creep
ever closer, biting at their heels. They can feel the heat of the reformation is closing in
on them, real justice, real trials and real convictions. They have good reason to fear and
panic, the deep state is apparently quite shallow at the end of the day, those seeking
justice for outweighing the corrupt political appointees and their falsely promoted minions
and they will pursue the shadow government for the chaos, loss of life, loss of wealth and
for the coming collapse as a result of shallow pathetic insatiable greed.
"... If the impeachment in the House of Representatives was such a brilliant piece of work, why is Nancy Pelosi now reluctant to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate? ..."
There are lots of dismal reasons why Trump will be elected, but the Democrats just gave
him the greatest gift of all: the only thing he does well in the morbid circus that his
administration/political life is campaign. He's useless at everything else. And he campaigns
best when he's railing against something, and better still when he is campaigning as the
victim of some perceived injustice, which he as a remarkable knack of convincing the audience
is an injustice vested on them, too.
It feels like nothing because it is nothing.
Democrats have been talking impeachment since the election. They have now accomplished
that, in a strict Party line vote. (The previous two impeachments were not party-line
votes.)
So, what will be the result?
In my opinion, this puts Trump in a better position running up to the Election. In the
Spring, we will see the Republican party-line rejection of conviction in the Senate. And,
they get the opportunity to call witnesses. Any one think they will not drag Biden up to the
Hill to question?
Trump gets to claim martyrdom (the Right loves to be martyrs, just as the Left loves to be
victims.) He gets to point at all this, and just as with the Mueller Report, crow that all
the investigations turned up nothing illegal.
But, IMO, the big story is that Democrats just emptied their cannon. They have nothing
left. And they wasted the shot.
There is no way that Donald Trump, a New York City real estate developer, has not broken
multiple laws. I am a bit offended by the laziness of the Democrats, in that they did not do
any work to investigate and accuse Trump of actual codified crimes. They impeached him over
rather minor and confusing matters of opinion. And now Trump can claim that all those
investigations yielded no actual law breaking.
Its a farce. A purely political, poorly directed farce. And, I am now almost certain that
they have guaranteed us another 4 years of Donald Effing Trump.
Its a bad mistake. Impeachment will be used exactly in the same way as Brexit was used as a
means to gametheory Johnson back into 10 Downing St. You will be regarded as friend or foe,
as the nation is utterly divided down the middle. Expect Trump and the Republicans to
steamroller the next Presidential Election as the Democrats will be painted as dangerous,
undemocratic , totally Anti American. What a truly depressing world we live in.
If the impeachment in the House of Representatives was such a brilliant piece of work, why is
Nancy Pelosi now reluctant to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate?
It appears
that she has little confidence in the work and despite claiming that it was urgent that the
process proceed as rapidly as possible, she is now dragging her feet. The American public was
expressing reduced enthusiasm for impeachment as it progressed and now the Democrats won't
even send the articles to the Senate. The will be hell to pay for this malfeasance at the
voting booth in less than a year.
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
I was against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. At that time democrat supporters made
pantomime protests by dressing as puritans and Mrs Clinton referred to the "Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy". The case for Trump impeachment is even weaker and unlike with Clinton there has
been a lack of due process and no bipartisan support. Impeachment has now become the pursuit
of politics by other means which is a bad precedent for the future.
But if you want to re-energise Trump's base, this is a good move.
In the U.S. Schiff is seen as dishonest, a parody make-up trickster, a liar, etc. Pelosi is
seen as intellectually feeble and somewhat ditzy. She was pushed onto the impeachment path by
the hard Left of the Democratic party. An example of that is the words used by Democrat
Rashida Tlaib to refer to Trump--a very vulgar "Impeach the mfer[abbreviation".
'a new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning, before the House vote, which shows two
things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up
a formal impeachment inquiry in October:
1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%
2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.'
Tulsi Gabbard on Twitter a few minutes ago, explaining her refusal to vote:
"A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are
ripping our country apart. Today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal
to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.
#StandWithTulsi"
According to the latest polls her support is about 2% nationally but higher in Iowa and
New Hampshire. Will her supporters stick with her? If not, where do they go? Sanders?
It feels anti-climatic because it was purely political. Democrats have set a terrible
precedent here. With no votes from the opposition party and cheers afterwards from the
majority party, they proved the impeachment was just a laborious exercise in bold faced
politics.
Now impeachment can be used whenever the roles are reversed and one party simply hates the
president from the other party.
So it's ok to have half of the court made up of people who have stated from before he was
elected they would impeach him, but wrong for him to have people in the court who are
prepared to defend him?
You want a show trial in which only the prosecutors get to make their case?
This impeachment is at best a symbolic act of defiance with no consequences.
At worst, it's a cynical ploy by establishment Dems to keeps Sanders and Warren tied up in
pointless Senate hearings, making it difficult for them to campaign for the election, and
giving Grandpa Joe an easy ride. Might Sound a bit tinfoil-hatty, but they'll do just about
anything to prevent meaningful change.
That being said, I also don't believe in the strange notion that this has somehow handed
Trump reelection. Why? The only people enraged by this are his cult, and they'll show up
anyway.
Nahh... We Brazilians have additional reasons to celebrate Trump's Fake Impeachment because
Dilma Rousseff was the victim of a Fake Impeachment sponsored by US Embassy in Brazil.
The self-destruction of the American political system sounds like music in my ears, as the
motherfucker Americans helped a handful of bandits tear my vote. Fuck US very much.
And now the poor Jair Bolsonaro is crying for his ass. Each politician mourns the loss of
his protector through his hole that it misses him, as we all say in Brazil.
This will likely backfire. Regardless of the rights and wrongs.
It will entrench most of his supporters and it will turn some waverers agains the Democrats.
That's a different debate. And one in which everything is viewed trough a short term
opportunistic myoptic lens. In some occasions that might be -accidentally - successful. But
mostly short term opportunistic behaviour is strategically (long term) stupid.
I agree that it was not very smart for Trump and later republicans to focus on the
Biden/Ukraine episode :-). I remember this cartoon with the one person covered in lots and
lots of spots pointing at another person who had just the one small spot while crying out:
'look: you have a spot'. Whatever you think about rich offspring getting into high end
schools and getting board positions (not a fan): the problem is a lot bigger on the
republican side.
Two days ago, the President sent a fuck-you letter to Pelosi. And she deserved it. Dems have nothing to offer to electorate so they engages in those witch hunts. They derailed
Tulsi, now they might face another four years of Trump.
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people
and nobody was impeached for that.
Torquemada's subjects never endured such inhumane treatment as Trump in the hands of Pelosi ;-) But we should not forget that
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people and nobody was impeached for that.
This Kabuki theater became more interesting: On 10th December 2019, Senator Mich McConnell (Republican Kentucky)
publicly declared, &"I'm not impartial about this at all. I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not
anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."
America is a write-off. It was a terrible idea from the beginning. An empire? Now? Really?
Not learning anything from the history books, eh? Ye need an American Union, asap, before
ye destroy us all.
Mark Galli, its current editor (who is leaving the publication in two weeks)
takes on Trump directly -- a courageous move on his part, as his magazine has largely been
apolitical. "The facts in this instance are unambiguous: the president of the United States
attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of
the president's political opponents," Galli writes. He draws the obvious conclusion for
Christians: "That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is
profoundly immoral." Galli goes further, digging into the behavior of the man in the Oval
Office, noting that Trump "has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration." He gets
specific: "He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals." As if
that wasn't enough, Galli adds, "He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his
relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone -- with its
habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders -- is a near perfect example of a
human being who is morally lost and confused." Galli's warning to Christians is clear. "To the
many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we
might say this: remember who you are and whom you serve," Galli writes. "Consider how your
justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an
unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior
in the cause of political expediency. If we don't reverse course now, will anyone take anything
we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?" Galli also
acknowledged Friday in an interview on CNN's "New Day" that his stand is unlikely to shake
loose Trump's strong hold on this voter segment, a crucial portion of his political base.
Galli's move is even more admirable when you consider that he published his editorial even
knowing that, as he said in his interview, he's not optimistic that his editorial will alter
Trump's support among white evangelicals. It's not a stretch to say that white evangelicals put
Trump into office in 2016. About
80% of them voted for him. They did so because of the abortion issue, mostly. They wanted
pro-life judges throughout the justice system. But this was a devil's bargain, at best.
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">Faith
could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45,
have been slowly but steadily
moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key
topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always
been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color)
has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys
that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from
Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the
imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth
that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate,"
Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told
Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young
Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral
behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton,
there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for
myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always
forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Humility lies at the heart of
Christian behavior. As does honesty. In these, Trump has set a terrible example, and he's now
been taken down for this by an important Christian voice. If only another 10 percent of
evangelicals take this seriously, and I suspect they will, Donald J. Trump's presidency is
destined for the ash heap of history.
Delaying the Senate trial erodes the Democrats' argument that impeachment was so urgent that
they could not wait for the courts to act on Trump's aggressive claims of privilege.
Seven Democratic presidential candidates who gathered on a debate stage in Los Angeles on
Thursday represent another argument for moving beyond impeachment.
... ... ...
Washington is fixated on the daily turns of the impeachment saga, but polls indicate that
most Americans are not. Business executive Andrew Yang pointed out that, even when the current
president is gone, the struggles of many people will remain, particularly in parts of the
country that helped elect Trump in 2016.
"We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. I just left Iowa -- we blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs
there," Yang said. "The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the
more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what's going on in our communities and solve
those problems."
That is what voters are waiting to hear, and the sooner the better for Democrats.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin there are going to be three things in life that are certain.
Death, taxes and the impeachment of a US President when the House is held by a different
party. American politics is going to get a whole lot nastier now than what it has been.
This Punch and Judy show has achieved nothing. The House impeached him and the Senate
won't convict him. Trump now will be playing the victim card. Come November the key thing
that will matter is the economy. If it as successful as it is now then he will get a second
term. If it is in a recession then advantage Democratic candidate.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for the Senate to subpoena four new witnesses that
the House never heard. Nancy Pelosi signaled Wednesday night that she might not send over to
the Senate the articles of impeachment the House had just approved.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor both Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
To have the Senate, which is judge and jury of the impeachment charges, start calling witnesses
whom House prosecutors failed to pursue "could set a nightmarish precedent."
Said McConnell, Schumer "would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats' homework
for them."
Schumer's plea for new witnesses is an admission that the House's case for impeaching Trump
is inadequate and deficient and could prove wholly noncredible to the American people. After
all, if you need more witnesses, you probably do not have the smoking gun.
The message sent by Pelosi's call for more time before the trial, and Schumer's call for
more witnesses, is one of fear that not only could the House's case for impeachment fail, it
could be laughed out of the Senate. And the American people might be fine with that.
The Democratic Party has bet the ranch on the impeachment and removal of Trump for
imperiling our "national security." But are Schumer and Pelosi behaving as though the republic
is in mortal peril?
Schumer's call for new witnesses also underscores the thinness of Article I of the
impeachment, Trump's alleged "Abuse of Power."
Beneath Article I, there is not a single crime listed -- no treason, no bribery, no
extortion, no high crimes.
What kind of impeachment is this, with not one crime from the list the Founding Fathers
designated as impeachable acts?
Why did the Democratic House not impeach Trump for conspiring with Russia to steal the 2016
election? Answer: Congress could no more prove this charge than could Robert Mueller after two
years.
Other events are breaking Trump's way.
The James Comey-FBI investigation Mueller inherited has begun to take on the aspect of a
"deep state" conspiracy.
According to the Justice Department's IG Michael Horowitz, the FISA court warrants used to
justify FBI spying were the products not only of incompetence but also of mendacity and
possible criminality.
The "essential" evidence used by the FBI to get the FISA judge to approve warrants for
surveillance was the Steele dossier.
An ex-British spy, Christopher Steele was working in mid-2016 for a dirt-diving operation
commissioned by the DNC and Clinton campaign to go after Trump. His altarpiece, the dossier, we
learn from Horowitz, was a farrago of fabrications, rumors, and lies fed to Steele by a Russian
"sub-source."
In the four FBI submissions to the FISA courts for warrants to spy on Carter Page, there
were "at least 17 significant errors or omissions."
And all 17 went against Team Trump.
Moreover, the discrediting of the Comey investigation has just begun. U.S. Attorney John
Durham will report this spring or summer on his deeper and wider investigation into its
roots.
As IG of Justice, Horowitz's investigation was confined to his department and the FBI. But
Durham is looking into the involvement of U.S. and foreign intelligence in the first days of
the FBI investigation.
Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham have both said that they do not share Horowitz's view
that there was no political bias at the beginning of the investigation of the Trump campaign.
Durham's writ is far wider than Horowitz's and he has the power to impanel grand juries and
bring criminal indictments.
Among the fields Durham is plowing are reports that agents and assets of the FBI and CIA may
have "set up" Trump foreign policy aide George Papadopoulos. Possible purpose: to feed him
intel about Russia having dirt on Hillary Clinton, and then entrap him, put him in legal
jeopardy, and turn him into an investigative instrument to be used against Trump.
With the Horowitz report confirming what the Trumpers have been reporting and saying about
Comey's investigation for years, and the newly proven manipulation of the FISA courts, the
media hooting about "right-wing conspiracy theories" seems to have been toned down.
Carter Page, once considered a dupe of the Russians, is now seen as a patriot who assisted
his country's intelligence services only to be made a victim of injustice who saw his civil
rights trampled upon by his own government.
The cards appear to be falling Trump's way.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan
and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump showed that it is not only through the spoken word or his Twitter
account that he is able to raise eyebrows, when he sent an angry and frequently bizarre letter
to House speaker Nancy Pelosi .
The six-page missive was remarkable for a number of reasons, not least for Trump's claim he
has been subjected to worse treatment than that endured by people accused of witchcraft in the
17th century.
Here are five highlights, or otherwise, from Trump's dispatch. 1) 'More due process was
afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.'
Fourteen women and five men were hanged in colonial Massachusetts the late 1690s, for
supposedly engaging in witchcraft. "Spectral evidence" was admissible in the trials –
evidence where a witness had a dream, or apparition, which featured the alleged witch engaged
in dark deeds. Spectral evidence is yet to feature in Trump's impeachment hearings.
2)
'You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: "I pray for the
president," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.
It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!'
Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she prays for Donald Trump. In October, the House speaker
said
she was praying for his "health", after Trump had what she described as a "meltdown" during a
meeting with Democratic leaders.
It's not the first time she has claimed to be appealing to a higher power on Trump's
behalf. It seems Trump doesn't like it. Or believe it.
3) 'There are not many people who
could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for
the success of America and its citizens.'
Trump's claims that he alone could withstand such rough treatment from his opponents
rather fall down here – located as they are in a six-page ode to
self-pity.
4) 'You view democracy as your enemy!'
This exclamation comes midway through the letter, after Trump claims the Democrats have
developed "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Trump is not confident of the odds Democrats will
recover from the malady: "You will never get over it!" he writes.
5) 'I write this letter
to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
100 years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and
learn from it, so that it can never happen to another president again.'
There's a slightly self-satisfied air to the final paragraph of the letter, as if Trump
feels he has delivered a piece of soaring oratory which will be pored over by scholars in years
to come. At least here, in a sense, Trump is correct. People are unlikely to forget "this
affair" – his presidency – for a long, long time and historians of the future will
certainly examine this letter: just perhaps not in the way Trump would want them to.
Muellergate and biased MSM overcame weak minded Americans and apparently caused Pu$$y
hatted evangelicals not to vote conservative in the 2018 Midterms. (If you believe there was
no ballot, voting machine or illegal voter fraud.).....
On to 2019, where the impeachment in name only in suspended animation will be used as the
Same Mullergate style main stream narrative to sway weak minded Americans and Voter fraud to
get Trump in 2020.
You had better hope Trump wins, because all your republican gun registered names are on
Google Databases. What do you think Hillary who invited NATO in during Bill's dalliance as
President was for, A Tea Party ?
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
Like it or not, impeaching a President is a very significant moment. It only happened twice
before, and came close a third. It IS an imporant occasion. And the principle is NO ONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW. This is why the Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution. And the occasion
impinged on one thing that the Founding Fathers dreaded most: a foreign nation involving
itself in our electoral process. IT IS THAT SERIOUS
Removing a president is a very significant moment, which isn't going to happen.
Impeaching a president is just another TV show, which will be forgotten by the general public
in a couple of years or so. Bubba's situation is only remembered in America and abroad due to
Monica's salacious role. Ask the first person on the street what the actual accusations
against Bubba were. Most won't even coherently explain what Donnie's current situation is
about. And in neither case it will be their fault, because it is politicians who are to be
fully blamed - Democrats are as inarticulate now as Republicans were then.
Regarding foreign ivolvements - you're a "little" bit too late to become concerned about
that. Saudi and Israeli interests have already attained a permanent residency within
America's political system, elections included.
But back in 2007, when Fein was working on impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney, Pelosi said that impeachment was off the table completely.
So "long as they think their party has a chance to get the White House back they're eager to
take Trump's usurpations and imitate them with executive orders of their own," Fein said.
Ultimately, according to Fein, both parties in Congress "have no concept of the separation
of powers. It's all about loyalty to party. None of the Democrats did anything about Obama
going to war illegally, the Snowden revelations, DACA. Democrats didn't complain at all about
that. Republicans are exactly the same. There's no longer any loyalty to the oath of office.
That's why the country's institutions are collapsing."
Nancy Pelosi is worried that impeachment will cost the Democrats their 2016 purple gains,
and with it, her speaker's gavel.
Yet in the end, her political calculation may prove shortsighted. After all, her limp and
rushed use of the House impeachment inquiry has unified Trump supporters, calcified executive
overreach, and played directly into Trump's hands.
Hence why impeachment is so rare. If evidence isn't so obvious that you have to rely on the
President's own supporters to get at it, you probably shouldn't be trying to impeach in the
first place. That's a political choice you have to make carefully.
I tend to think this is going to be a disaster for Democrats. The GOP-controlled Senate
will spend all of its time asking questions about Biden and his son and then fully acquit,
GOP voters will come out in force and rally around the President, and Democratic voters
will be disillusioned and stay home.
I'd be happy to see Trump impeached for leaving our troops in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq
and the rest. But then I would have impeached Bush and Obama for the same.
The Trump Campaign Promises Monitor has posted a month-by-month timeline of the impeachment
inquiry, from the day Congress approved Ukrainian military aid to yesterday's impeachment
vote. See Promise #50: Drain the Swamp/Topic #14 - Impeachment Inquiry @
http://trumpcampaignpromise...
With the House set to vote on two impeachment articles Wednesday, President Trump has
broken his 2016 campaign promise to "drain the swamp." For a list of the 15 different ways
President Trump has, in fact, failed to drain the swamp, see Promise #50 at the Trump
Campaign Promises Monitor @
http://trumpcampaignpromise...
"... "growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House against Trump may actually be helping him politically." ..."
"... "open war on American Democracy." ..."
"... the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record." ..."
"... It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media. ..."
"... So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think. ..."
...If the plan was to sabotage Trump's second-term campaign, it seems to have backfired spectacularly. With every
hearing before the Intelligence or Judiciary Committee, the public support for impeachment actually decreased. Even
CNN
was forced to admit the existence of
"growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House
against Trump may actually be helping him politically."
Indeed, what better way for Trump to solidify his bona
fides as the populist outsider than to be impeached by the coastal elites and the Washington Swamp, in what amounted to
a nakedly partisan process?
Definition of Impeachment (modern): A process by which the party out of power shows the
world how they got that way. Happens most commonly right before a landslide reelection.
...Trump never gets tired of pointing out the accomplishments of his administration: jobs, stock market growth, trade
deals, etc. He did so again, in a scathing letter to Pelosi on Impeachment Eve, contrasting that to her party's
"open war on American Democracy."
However,
the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the
Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the
purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record."
It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by
the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major
political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US
intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media.
So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think.
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that our leaders -- presidents, advisors,
generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly
and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as valiant public servants, is less accurate
and more rose-tinted than the closest approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest.
That is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they conjure up every three years, are
fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic,
not humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer, and alleged cannibal. This is
him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political prisoners to death, massacred hundreds
of prisoners, and made torture an institution. This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of political opponents, perpetrated obvious
election fraud, and had his term extended until 2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious.
It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest
of the wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian
reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support
Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators;
it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending
your kids to die. Never.
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping
the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."
Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders
on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that
he said was "upsetting" to write.
Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students,
forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies
for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.
Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing
support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic
future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an
interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."
But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing
poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending
is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital
and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.
" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and
governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free
enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure
planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous
it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."
Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us
the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.
We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
And Ms. Pelosi believes that Mr. Trump is so eager for the public vindication of a Senate
acquittal that he will put pressure on the majority leader to make it happen even if it means
offering some concessions to Mr. Schumer.
For now, however, Mr. McConnell -- and many other Senate Republicans -- seem unmoved by the
House posture. He spent much of Thursday gleefully ridiculing Democrats' negotiating
tactics.
"Do you think this is leverage, to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he asked
reporters this week as he cracked a broad smile outside the Senate chamber, in a departure from
his usual dour expression.
"... Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no audits. The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century. Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor. Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the Bidens are at the trough. ..."
"... So the documents were released three weeks ago? Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY? So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter? ..."
"... So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama? Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of Russiagate? And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the U.S.
Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which had been founded in March
2017 by liberals (really by some of the
main billionaires who fund the Democratic Party
) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (by
Republican billionaires
).
The now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made it as difficult as possible to report the contents of this
dump; Most especially by providing only a photographic image of each page, making it impossible to search on most
systems; and also impossible to Copy/Paste any quotations.
Consequently, on November 23rd, I made a pdf copy of that document to the Web Archive (the first of probably many
that will become posted there), in order to be able to link here to something that will come onscreen less sluggishly
for any interested reader who will want to see the document.
I am herewith pasting below what I consider to be the most important extended passage in the document, so as to
make that passage especially available online. I have manually transcribed the photos, in order that any portion of
this important passage (pages 61-66) can now be easily found and cited by other reporters.
This way, at least that passage might become more widely disseminated to the public -- which it should be, because
the information there contradicts many of the 'news'-reports about Ukrainegate, or the impeachment case against
Trump. (Some excerpts from this extended passage were reported on
November 25th
by the great non-mainstream news-site Zero Hedge, and that was entirely accurate.)
In this passage, President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on January 23, 25, and 26, of 2019, took a deposition
from Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced to be fired on 29 March 2016 as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also
a deposition from Yuriy Lutsenko, who replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a
one-billion-dollar donation ('loan guarantees' to the then-and-now bankrupt Government of Ukraine) from America's
taxpayers, to fund the then just-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian Government
of Ukraine, for it to stay afloat just a while longer.
Shokin – January 23, 2019, 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General Prosecutor of Ukraine was
conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani, Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George
Boyle.
The conversation was conducted through the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev
Parnas in New York. The sum and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine from 2015 until April
of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Shokin
was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola
Zlochevsky the former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine.
The case was opened as a result of Mr. Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in
Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr.
Shokin stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is listed, with
the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following complaints are in the criminal
case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings and gave those
companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect himself. Mr.
Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above-mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr. Shokin attempted to
continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him
that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing.
On or about September 2015, Mr. Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated
correctly and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three million dollars were
frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents were prepared and the money was released
so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office. That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above
cases again.
Mr. Shokin stated that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April [actually
29 March
] of 2016 Mr. Shokin was dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine [and
both the U.S. and its stooge the EU celebrated his firing
-- the EU aquiesced in the
U.S. regime's Ukrainian coup
]. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by the current Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of multiple people in
Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received. It is believed that
Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest
of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office and told that the investigation
into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one
billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told him he had to be
fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden told Mr. Poroshenko that he had
evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired. Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the
U.S. aid was delivered within one and one half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch denied his visa to
travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr. Shokin also stated that there were leaks
by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated
that there is possible deceit in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
*
Yuriy Lutsenko January 25, 2019, 445 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was present at 445 Park Av e,
New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz
Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the Minister of Interior
from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two and one half years as a political
prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two thousand six hundred
thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to explain that there is a unit called
Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau
Ukraine (NABU) which investigates corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that
the current U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU.
He feels they are good organizations but have terrible leadership. His office has absolutely no control over
SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at (mentioned above)
and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation from Burisma. He produced a document
from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were distributed out of Burisma's account.
The record showed two (2) companies and four (4) individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in
disbursements, as follows [the breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor Generals' Office. Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was present at 445 Park
ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one specific mention which was not vague and
which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A "system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine,
have it laundered, and then collect the laundered money.
These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell companies. He further
stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located offshore, and that two of them had approximately seven
billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of
the beneficiaries were pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre-coup
Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold
to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor
Kolomoysky. And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering a few billions from his bankrupt PrivatBank,
Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma
(which probably isn't much, now that
no established fracking company has found it
to be worth developing).
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose
it and to go after both Obama and Kolomoysky, and to abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does
decide to go after the principals in the case, then he'll have to expose whom were the actual principals, and whom
were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been only on actual agents, no principals. Given the way
in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been particularly eager to get
the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has
likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
Dec. 9, 2015
: Hunter Biden and business partner Devon Archer meet at State
Department regarding Burisma Holdings prosecution. [But no online record is provided, no documentation here, of
what was said.]
Feb. 11, 16, 19, 2016
: VP Biden holds series of phone calls with President Poroshenko to check
on status of pending items from their December 2015 meeting. Removal of general prosecutor raised again. [But,
again, no online record is provided. No evidence is provided of any mention of replacing the prosecutor.]
March 15, 2016:
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland demands
Ukraine "appoint and confirm a new, clean Prosecutor
General, who is committed to rebuilding the integrity of the PGO, and investigate, indict and successfully
prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases -- including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself." She
offers no proof that special prosecutor's [General Prosecutor's] office is corrupt.
March 22, 2016:
VP Joe Biden engages in a phone call from Washington DC with Ukrainian
President Poroshenko about U.S. loan guarantees [there is actually no indication in the official readout regarding
any "loan guarantees"].
It is believed in this call that Biden renews his demands that the president fire Prosecutor General Shokin,
but this time Biden warns Ukraine risk[s] losing the next $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees [and, yet again,
Pompeo's State Department falsifies, because
the official readout
says nothing of the sort].
[The only useful information that's provided there is that seven days before Shokin was fired, Biden did phone
Poroshenko, and that Pompeo's State Department isn't to be trusted in anything it asserts, because it
misrepresents here what that readout says. Therefore, the "Dec. 9, 2015" entry also isn't to be trusted, since no
accompanying documentation is provided for its allegation.]
I thought that the Republicans and Democrats decided to, essentially, kill the impeachment (hoax) in
order to protect the entire political class. I mean, Really, the contest between Republicans is phony so
that development is not surprising. Also, according to Alexander Mercouris (who wants to see Trump
re-elected!), both Shokin and Lutsenko (who doesn't have a lawyer background) were doing dirty work on
behalf of their respective oligarch patrons. That's Ukraine now and peviously.
It does seem that
there's a lot of dislike for Trump by the Dems and many Repubs but there's an even stronger dislike by
those enemies of Trum, together with the rest of the political class, of democracy. And there's a culture
of criminalit and impunity which members of the American political share or the exposure of Russiagate
would have seen a chastening of the Democratic Party et al instead of a doubling down on whatever lies
might help remove Trump. Neither is Trump chastened by his brush with the tainting of his crown as he
signs laws that codify the lie that peaceful protest and honest criticism of Israel is antisemitism.
Antonym
,
Imagine the confidence the Democrats
still have today
that with
"Ukrainegate" they can criminalize sitting president Trump instead of their own much more guilty
opposition leaders: US deep state is almost 50 rooted with many appointees in all power branches.
ttshasta
,
Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no
audits.
The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century.
Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor.
Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the
Bidens are at the trough.
Ukraine is not quite the most corrupt country on the planet, but it gives Afghanistan and Somalia some
pretty stiff competition.
Many tens of billions have been poured into the country by the US and EU
taxpayer, via the IMF, CIA, NED, and similar organisations. It has promptly vanished into thin air. There
is nothing to show for it. Ukraine is a Big Black Hole. It is now just a CIA/ NATO playground in the
grand scheme of things to install an openly Fascist Regime in Kiev to encircle and destabilise Russia.
The main players in Ukraine are Levantine oligarchs like Kolomoisky and his ilk, who have stolen
everything that wasn't nailed down in Ukraine since independence. And everything that was nailed down.
Just like Russia in the 1990s. They were joined by a whole host of all the usual suspects, dual/ triple
national Jews with a visceral hatred of Russia. The Nulands, the Vindmans, the Ioanovitches and all the
rest. Ukraine has been a happy hunting ground for these people. There has been a virtually unlimited
bonanza of western taxpayers' money to divvy up between them. Together with a few goy stooges like the
Bidens, who were also allowed to wet their beaks. There was enough to go around, after all.
No wonder they hate Trump so much for spoiling the party. Over to Schiff, Nadler, Cohen, Cohen and
Cohen. Reacting with all the fury of a dog that has had its bone taken away.
Dungroanin
,
So the documents were released three weeks ago?
Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY?
So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter?
So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama?
Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of
Russiagate?
And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up.
It can lead to the immediate collapse of the new bozo house of cards and clear the swamp in one
Herculean flushing! You may even be able to save Assange from martyrdom in the British dungeon.
What's it to be Me Zuesse?
George Cornell
,
Thanks for this. It is surely complex and after all why shouldn't Miss Vicki decide who should lead the
Ukraine. And why should anyone begrudge the right of an exemplar sovereign state to deep six a prosecutor
who went after criminal corruption? But even the incognoscenti can appreciate that Hunter Biden, the
cokeheaded nitwit who was shoehorned into the Navy, by his fathers' friends, was unable to forgo the coke
till his urine got tested. His length of service could be measured in hours or days (how long does it
take to get the urine test results) as he was immediately dishonourably discharged. Further, that he
could not possibly provide service to Burisma that was not corrupt, simply because he had no demonstrable
expertise in their affairs. Unless Biden Jr's expertise in marital infidelity, fathering children out of
wedlock with strippers, and spending his marital income on lap dancers and drugs (according to his
ex-wife) dovetailed with Burisma's undeclared interests.
It was reported in the NYT that Bidens presence on the Burisma board gave it respectability. Of course
it must have, although presumably by error, Burisma was left out of any of the lists of most admired
companies. Perhaps these were compiled before Jr. was taken on board, so to speak. Ukrainians can hold
their heads high, such an incredible coup it was to have Biden Jr. grace their country. And he picked the
Ukraine over the horde of other countries which must relentlessly vie for his services, whatever they
might be. Just his accepting their cheques is surely enough.
It is not difficult to appreciate how the Democratic Party leapt at the chance to show the American
public how those big meanie Republicans have wagged their tongues so uncharitably against the upstanding
and virtuous seed of the loins of their leading 77 yr. old presidential candidate. After all, boys will
be boys. Say what you like about the Dems but you can't deny their canny shrewdness and ability to sniff
out talent.
espite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on
late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up
as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen
." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely
stifling a yawn over the
Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis
built for cable news.
Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
Nobody will be impeached for lying about Afghanistan. There will be no intelligence
community whistleblower setting in motion an impeachment inquiry over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In fact, the same Nancy Pelosi who ultimately caved to the Resistance shut
down antiwar Democrats who wanted such hearings into George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But here
John Bolton, an advocate
of preventive presidential war during this very administration, may finally get his wish of
being
greeted as a liberator .
Even as Representative Adam Schiff led the drive to impeach Trump, the California Democrat
voted for a defense bill that lavishes the executive branch with money without restraining
presidential war powers. But this seeming inconsistency is practically the point -- the entire
impeachment inquiry was wrapped in hawkish assumptions and rhetoric as liberal Democrats
unthinkingly stumbled into a Cold War 2.0 mindset that few of them this side of Hillary Clinton
would have willingly embraced absent
frequently overhyped Trump-Russia headlines dating back to the 2016 campaign.
No, Trump isn't Jesus Christ being handed
over by Pontius Pilate. His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn't "
perfect
" and neither side of this partisan morality tale has exactly covered itself in glory. Rudy
Giuliani's escapades seem particularly likely to end badly. One need not even necessarily
defend Trump's conduct to oppose an impeachment inquiry largely predicated on threat inflation.
Arm Ukraine, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testified, so they can "fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here." She could have been starring in a Democratic
reboot of Red Dawn decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
There's no question Trump to some extent dangled a White House visit and congressionally
authorized aid to Ukraine before Kyiv in pursuit of the talking point that Joe Biden was under
investigation. The only matters in dispute are how determined the effort was, whether Trump's
motives were at least partially publicly spirited, the degree of the Bidens' shadiness, and why
the aid was ultimately disbursed (Byron York
makes the case that it wasn't necessarily because of the whistleblower).
House Democrats began with a presumption of corrupt intent on all counts and a definition of
foreign election interference elastic enough to include Trump utterances about WikiLeaks and
Hillary's deleted emails but not Ukraine's (smaller, less systematic and arguably less
effective than Russia's) 2016 influence
campaign . And while not all investigations are created equal -- if Hunter Biden's business
dealings are to be probed, it should not be as a favor to any president -- the impeachment
inquiry itself is an investigation of a political rival, who was also investigated during his
previous campaign .
If shortcuts were taken in the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, the origins of
Trump-Ukraine resemble a template for undermining any seriously antiwar or civil libertarian
president. Trump is not that president himself, of course -- his acquiescence to the Beltway
blob on lethal military aid is precisely what increased his leverage over Ukraine -- but some
plausible and even the
occasional Republican could be. Trump's mild rhetorical dissents on foreign policy are
clearly a factor in why he has reason to be suspicious of his own subordinates (it's also why
it is disingenuous to suggest that replacing Trump with Mike Pence is no different than
replacing Bill Clinton with ideologically identical Al Gore or that people who have worked for
Bush, Cheney or John McCain
would have no reason to oppose Trump).
Many Democrats sincerely believed they were impeaching Trump for the least of his crimes,
like Al Capone and tax evasion, and that Robert Mueller let him escape last time. They are also
making a case against Trump's ability to separate personal and national interests in a way that
speaks to his fitness for the office, with Ukraine merely being their specific example. But in
doing so, they are also ratifying a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has failed the
American people, and that's bigger than any one president.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
Giving military aid to foreign countries and spreading our military power across the globe
is a threat to our national security. Our military spending is obscene. Its how all empires
crumble, when they just can't give up control of the entire world. Time to retreat from the
world-wide power projection insanity and restructure our strategy to provide true national
defense.
James isn't it possible that the Dems concern for Ukraine is perceived to be phony, in the
same way people saw Republican's concern about Clinton's sex perjury as cynical. It could
make voters more aware of our involvement in foreign conflict. Clinton was impeached for
being awful to women, and now Trump, for whom PG does not mean parental guidance, is
cruising toward reelection. Trump's been impeached for being a Dove, who knows we might get
a Rand Paul isolationist within the next decade. Just a thought.
The Democrats declared war this week. Not on Donald Trump but on the United States and the
Constitution.
What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War as
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran-feces) presided over the passage of a bill which creates a
clear Constitutional Crisis.
And that means we have multiple factions vying for control of our government, the definition
of a Civil War.
In passing these articles of impeachment against President Trump Congress has arrogated to
itself powers it does not have.
The first article asserts a motive to Trump's actions to invalidate his role as chief law
enforcement officer for the country. It doesn't matter if you like him or any President having
this power, he does have it.
Read that first article and then apply it to a country other than Ukraine where Trump
didn't have 'probable cause' for investigation into corruption and malfeasance there.
That could be Abuse of Power.
But this happened in Ukraine where Trump clearly has probable cause.
The following is the scenario the first impeachment article is asserting as the basis for
abuse of power, through ascribing political motives to the President:
One day President Trump wakes up and says, "Shit! Joe Biden's leading me in the polls. I
need to do something about this."
So, Trump twirls his orange comb-over and calls up the Prime Minister of Armenia, a
Russian ally, to whom we've pledged aid. Since it's a Russian ally and Trump may have
colluded with the Russians, they would be a good candidate to help him.
But Joe Biden has no history of diplomacy or oversight in Armenia as Vice-President.
There's no record of any contact of any kind with Biden in Armenia, for argument's sake.
Trump then, during the phone call, shakes down the Armenian PM for that aid, explicitly
saying he must create dirt on Joe Biden or he would withhold appropriated aid funds to the
country.
Then, after getting caught, Trump tries to hide the record of the phone call by hiding
behind Executive Privilege.
That would be Abuse of Power and an impeachable offense. It would be regrettable but
indefensible that the odious jackals in Congress were right to impeach him. They would,
actually, be defending the Constitution and fully within their rights.
But, that's not what happened.
Biden was put in charge of Ukraine by President Obama. He had full discretion on policy
towards Ukraine and was caught on tape bragging about doing exactly what the impeachment
article is accusing Trump of doing. Shaking Ukraine down for favors in order to get $1 billion
in aid.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KCF9My1vBP4
Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired was investigating corruption into his son Hunter's
involvement with Ukrainian gas company Burisma, this admission is pretty damning, showing clear
personal motive to use his office to stop investigation into his family.
This is Abuse of Power. This is subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the whims of an elected
official, squelching an investigation into his personal family, using the office for personal
gain.
So, when viewed through this lens the first impeachment article is a complete lie. Trump
didn't do the things asserted. The transcript of the phone call with Ukrainian President
Zelensky proves that.
Trump made the phone call public immediately.
The phone call and Trump's order to review the foreign aid were contemporaneous but not
conditional. If you have a non-charitable view of the President it may raise some questions,
but there was probable cause here.
Your opinions on Trump do not add up to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The implications of this impeachment article are, however, staggering.
It says explicitly that the U.S. president cannot discharge his duties as a law enforcement
official if the person of interest is someone of the opposite party or a potential electoral
opponent.
It says that probable cause is not a standard for investigation only political
considerations.
That's a clear violation of Congress' role. Congress writes laws. The President executes
them. If the Congress wants to assume law enforcement powers it should work to amend the
Constitution.
This is a clear example of why impeachment is a political process not a legal one. But, if
they are going to act this politically, at least they should put the veneer of legality on it.
Even the equally odious Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton did that.
But in asserting this as an offence Congress seeks to place the Legislative Branch as
superior to the Executive in matters of law enforcement and implementation.
That's a clear violation of the separation of powers. It may suck that the guy holding the
Office of the Presidency is someone you don't like or not willing to turn a blind eye to
corruption, but doing his job is not a 'high crime or misdemeanor.'
The second article is even worse. Because asserts the power to subpoena members of the
Executive branch under the impeachment inquiry into the first article. And since Congress has
sole authority over impeachment, no judicial review of its subpoena power can be made.
This is fully unconstitutional since it subverts the power of the Judicial branch to settle
disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches as established by the Constitution.
Pelosi and company are broadening the definition of 'the sole power of impeachment' to say
that whatever Congress deems as worthy of an impeachment inquiry is therefore law and the other
branches have no say in the matter.
This is patent nonsense and wholly tyrannical.
Rod Rosenstein and Andrew Weismann tried to use an equally broad interpretation of
'obstruction of justice' to include future harm to continue the special council's investigation
into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
Moreover it renders the concept of judicial review as laid down in Marbury vs. Madison null and void.
Congress cannot just make up laws and crimes out of whole cloth and then unilaterally declare
them constitutional under the rubric of impeachment.
The Supreme Court has the right to strike down bills Congress passes as
unconstitutional.
This drives a massive wedge through the separation of powers in a blatant power grab by
Pelosi and the Democratic House majority to protect themselves from Trump's investigations into
their crimes surrounding events in Ukraine.
When viewed dispassionately, Obstruction of Congress is not a crime but rather a function of
each of the other two branches of government. It's no better when the President hides behind
Executive Orders to legislate unconstitutionally.
And it's even worse when the Supreme Court makes up laws from the bench rather than kick the
ball back to Congress and start the process all over again.
That's what the whole three co-equal branches of government is supposed to mean.
Now, in practice I don't believe the three branches are equal, as the Judicial branch
routinely oversteps its authority. But in this case if it does not step in immediately and
defend itself from this Congress then the basic fabric of our government unravels
overnight.
That the second impeachment article is directly dependent on the flawed (or non-existent)
logic of the first impeachment article renders the whole thing simply laughable on the face of
it.
I'm no legal scholar so when I can see how ridiculous these articles are then you know this
has nothing to do with the law but everything to do with power.
And the reality is, as
I discussed in my latest podcast , what this impeachment is really about is distracting and
covering up the multiple layers of corruption in U.S. foreign and domestic policy stretching
back decades. Many of the tendrils emanating from the events surrounding the FISA warrants
improperly granted connect directly to the Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, William Browder and the
rape of Russia in the post-Soviet 90's.
We're talking an entire generation or more of U.S. officials and politicians implicated in
some of the worst crimes of the past thirty years.
The stakes for these people are existential. This is why they are willing to risk a
full-blown constitutional crisis and civil war to remove Trump from office.
They know he's angry at them now. This is personal as well as philosophical. Trump is a
patriot, a narcissist and a gangster. That's a powerful combination of traits.
The polls are shifting his way on this as the average person knows this impeachment is
pathetic. They are tired of the Democrats' games the same way British voters are over the
arguments against Brexit.
So the old adage about killing the king come to mind. If Pelosi et.al. miss here, the
retribution from Trump will be biblical.
The damage to the society is too great to argue irrelevancies. No one outside of the Beltway
Bubble and the Crazies of the Resistance cares about what Trump did here. It's too arcane and
most people are against giving a shithole like Ukraine taxpayer money in the first place.
The whole thing is a giant pile of loser turds steaming up the room and impeding getting any
work done.
In the end We'll know if Trump has his ducks in a row in how Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell plays his cards versus Pelosi. If McConnell pussy-foots around and gives Pelosi
anything on how the trial in the Senate is conducted then the fix is in and Trump is done.
But, if McConnell shuts this down then what comes next will be a righteous smackdown of
Trump's political opponents that will make the phone call with Zelensky look like a routine
call to Dominos' for a double pepperoni.
Either way, this coup attempt by Pelosi is now open warfare. There will be casualties.
* * *
Join My Patreon if you
want help navigating what's the next stop on the short bus to Crazytown. Install the Brave Browser to suck the money away from
Google and protect your privacy.
The inescapable truth is that Trump has 1) not delivered on his 2016 promises, and 2) has
surrounded himself with some of the vilest NeoCon scum on the planet. If he was a true
patriot, as he claimed during the 2016 election campaign, why would he not honor his promises
and surround himself with certifiable gangsters? It raises an important question. Is trump
controlled opposition who was installed as president to undermine and neutralize true
conservatives and patriots? His actions and deeds since becoming president would support this
interpretation.
If true, then the Democratic Party impeachment is little more than kabuki theater that
provides cover for Trump while ensuring his election in 2020 when all hell breaks loose as
the bubble or fake economy built on debt and counterfeit money crashes.
Patriotic and true conservative Americans according to this scenario are being setup up as
the fall guys to take the blame for the Greater Depression instead of the real culprits which
are the Fed and banksters on Wall Street.
Trump appears to be playing the role of Hoover who during the 1930s Great Depression paved
the way for Roosevelt and the Marxist New Deal which was imposed on an unsuspecting American
people struggling to survive during a depression created for them by the Fed. The words of
Franklin Roosevelt speak for themselves.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that
way."
He won't be removed from office but the brainwashed Trumpeteers and satanic "Christian"
Zionists will be riled enough to elect him in 2020...all part of the grand plan.
Trump's
executive order -- deceptively called "An Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism" --
issued this past week, will empower the federal Department of Education to withhold funding
to college campuses that do not squash anti-Israel rhetoric. In other words, it is now
official government policy to deny college students and faculty members their Natural and
constitutional right to criticize -- especially and primarily if they criticize any and all
things Israel. This will also doubtless include speech that supports Palestinian rights.
Trump also declared that the religion of Judaism is a nationality or ethnicity and is
beyond criticism. Can you imagine the outcry if he had declared Christianity to be a
nationality?
Plus, by issuing this Executive Order, Donald Trump has made every Christian and non-***
in the United States a second-class citizen. But don't expect Robert Jeffress and his gaggle
of Christian Zionists to figure that out.
I have said repeatedly that Donald Trump is America's first Zionist president. And Trump's
actions continue to prove that statement true.
As I wrote in another article this impeachment circus may very well be a Zionist ploy to
keep people thinking Trump is anti deep state, like the QAnon psyop.
He may be anti globalist but not deep state. Well in any case if the Dems don't send the
impeachment to the Senate then this is just a mock trial for appearances sake only. And the
fact Pelosi balked yesterday strengthens that possibility!
The Constitution is itself a farce and a mask for the exercise of power. How does one
interpret "general welfare"? To whom do you petition for the transgressions of "rights"? Is
it not a branch of the same government? We are not in the same situation as the colonists of
the 13 colonies. The enemy is not separated by an ocean. The political decline and conflict
questioned in this article is a result of the economic decline worldwide. Prepare for what
comes after the USA and don't dwell on legal trivialities within.
There are very few Christians, in truth. Professing to be Christian means nothing if you
don't believe every word from the mouth of Yahweh. The judeo-christian churches are the great
apostasy.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump
is guilty of wrongdoing," she said. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment
because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process,
fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
A censure would "send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their
abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from
office to the voters to decide," Gabbard said.
So, if the President wanted to, he could be impeached by the house over and over again
without that helping the Senate to find any illegal, and therefore convictable behavior for the
President?
May be if the house impeach him three times and never send the impeachment articles to the
Senate, the dear President would faint. May be then the doctors would finally decide that he is
incapable of fulling his duties in the White House and declare him officially so sicko that he
gets forced to stay in bed. /sad snark attempt.
"The CIA was the central protagonist in Russiagate. The origins of the New Cold War are found
in Bill Clinton's first term, when administration neo-cons looted, plundered and moved NATO
against a prostrate Russia in
contradiction to explicit guarantees not to do so made by the George H.W. Bush
administration. Vladimir Putin's apparent crime was to oust the Clintonites from Russia and
restore Russian sovereignty." CounterPunch.org
"Russiagate was a declaration of war by the 'intelligence community' against a duly elected
President. As argued below, the CIA's motive is to move its own foreign policy agenda forward
without even the illusion of democratic consent." CounterPunch.org
Notable quotes:
"... Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, never part of the solution. ..."
Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US
war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and
abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the
problem, never part of the solution.
Her long disturbing congressional record shows she exclusively serves wealth and power
interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans she disdains, proving it time and
again.
Her deplorable voting record speaks for itself, backing:
the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Blily Act repeal of Glass-Steagall, permitting some of the most
egregious financial abuses in the modern era;
the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), permitting endless
wars of aggression in multiple theaters, raging endlessly;
annual National Defense Authorization Acts and US wars of aggression;
Obama's neoliberal harshness, continuing under Trump, along with tax cuts for the rich,
benefitting her and her husband enormously, without admitting it;
increasingly unaffordable marketplace medicine, ripping off consumers for profit, leaving
millions uninsured, most Americans way underinsured;
the USA Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and other police state law;
the 9/11 whitewash Commission Recommendation Act;
the FISA Amendments Act -- permitting warrantless spying post-9/11, Big Brother watching
everyone;
NAFTA and other anti-consumer/corporate coup d'etat trade bills;
the repressive US gulag prison system, the world's largest by far; incarcerating
millions by federal, state, and local authorities, it includes global torture prisons;
unapologetic support for Israeli apartheid viciousness;
fierce opposition to Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and other
nonbelligerent sovereign states threatening no one;
the Russiagate witch hunt and Ukrainegate scams.
Calling exploitive/predatory "free market (capitalism) our greatest asset" shows her
contempt for equity and justice.
Her support for the military, industrial, security, media complex is all about backing
endless wars of aggression against invented enemies. No real ones exist.
Pelosi represents what belligerent, plutocratic, oligarchic, increasingly totalitarian rule
is all about, notably contemptuous of nations on the US target list for regime change --
Russia, China and Iran topping the list.
On Friday, she falsely accused Russia of involvement in Ukrainegate, a failed Russiagate
scam spinoff with no legitimacy, supported by undemocratic Dems and their echo-chamber
media.
Repeating the long ago debunked Russian US election meddling Big Lie that won't die, she
falsely accused Moscow of "ha(ving) a hand in this."
Referring to the Ukrainegate scam, she offered no evidence backing her accusation because
none exists.
During a Friday press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York,
Sergey Lavrov slammed Pelosi's Big Lie, saying:
"Russia's been accused of all the deadly sins, and then some. It's paranoia, and I think
it's obvious to everyone."
It's unacceptable anti-Russia hate-mongering, what goes on endlessly, Cold War 2.0
raging.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following on her facebook
page:
"Speaker of the lower house of Congress Nancy Pelosi believes that Russia is involved in the
scandal over July telephone conversation between us and Ukraine Presidents Donald Trump and
Vladimir Zelensky."
"This (baseless) assumption was made on Friday Pelosi (not) explaining what it means, and
without providing evidence of her words."
"Considering that it was Nancy Pelosi who caused the 'Scandal around the telephone
conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine,' then, according to the
speaker's logic, Russia attached the hand to her."
What's going on is continuation of the most shameful political chapter in US history,
ongoing since Trump took office, along with railroading Richard Nixon.
Both episodes represent McCarthyism on steroids – supported by establishment media,
furious about Trump's triumph over Hillary, targeting him largely for the wrong reasons,
ignoring plenty of right ones.
Mueller's probe ended with a whimper, not the bang Dems wanted, Ukrainegate their second
bite of the apple to try discrediting Trump for political advantage ahead of November 2020
elections.
That's what Russiagate and Ukrainegate are all about.
These actions by undemocratic Dems and their media press agents are further clear proof that
Washington's deeply corrupted political system to its rotten core is far too debauched to
fix.
While Nancy Pelosi
threatens to withhold articles of impeachment passed Wednesday night by the House, Harvard
Law Professor Noah Feldman says that President Trump isn't technically impeached until the
House actually transmits the articles to the Senate. Feldman, who testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings earlier this month, argues in a
Bloomberg Op-Ed that the framers' definition of impeachment "assumed that impeachment was a
process, not just a House vote," and that " Strictly speaking, "impeachment" occurred –
and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at
that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial ."
If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually
impeached the president . If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say
that he wasn't truly impeached at all.
That's because "impeachment" under the Constitution means the House sending its approved
articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the
president is impeached.
As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, "TRUMP IMPEACHED," those are a
media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement . So far, the House has voted to
impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn't impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the
Senate and the House members deliver the message . -Noah Feldman
Pelosi, meanwhile, won't transmit the articles until the Senate holds what she considers a
"fair" trial.
Roughly modeled after England's impeachment procedures, the framers in Article I of the
constitution gave the House "the sole power of impeachment," while giving the Senate "the sole
power to try all impeachments."
Article II outlines says the president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
There's more:
But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the
fairness of its own trial – that's what the "sole power to try all impeachments"
means.
If the House votes to "impeach" but doesn't send the articles to the Senate or send
impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn't directly violated the text of the
Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution's
description of impeachment.
A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to
defend himself before the Senate . That's built into the constitutional logic of impeachment,
which demands a trial before removal.
To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there
can be no trial there . That's what the "sole power to impeach" means.
In closing, Feldman says " if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with
strong justification that he was never actually impeached ," adding "And that's probably not
the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send."
In times past the Senate would have guarded its power against the House. I'm guessing the
Democrat Senators thinks party is more important than all that.
This pansy has no standing about anything related to impeachment.
He has not made any academic studies on the topic nor did he even take the time to prepare
for his biased and totally ridiculous testimony in the "impeachment."
It is all part of our lesson from this event.
Schiff is a graduate of Harvard. And this pansy teaches at Harvard.
The lesson to take away from all this is never ever hire anyone from Harvard nor to
believe anything from them because they are not educated they are indoctrinated.
Think about it people CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, all in lock step with the Democratic
Party no objective reporting at all anymore. These national media outlets and the Democratic
Party continue to publish and propagate false and fake new stories and never retract them or
admit it was all pure fiction.
Why, we have to ask why? Because they deem the American public not smart enough to think
for themselves. If the truth does not fit the pre-determined narrative it is buried or
covered-up by the national media. Their position is you will think do and say as we tell you,
since you're just not smart enough to think for yourself or decide for yourself on how you
want to live your own lives. We know what's best for you. The self-appointed Elite and the
Dems on both Coasts deem all of us in the flyover states not smart enough to vote for a
President, You're just not smart enough to raise your children and teach your kids as you
deem fit, you should not be allowed to worship as you desire or own guns, you're just not
smart enough to control and manage your retirement savings. They desire to eliminate the
Electoral College so your vote is eliminated. Trump scares the hell out of them because they
see their money pot being taken away from them and their ill-conceived control over our
Country slipping away. They have looted and pillaged this country for decades and built a
lavish lifestyle using your hard earned tax dollars. The area around Washington DC is not the
richest area in America by accident.
What have the Democrat party done for the citizens of the US the last 3 years or the last
20 years for that matter. Do you think their impeachment push and the attacks for the last 3
years are because they have the American people's best interest at heart? Think again. They
care absolutely nothing about the American people and have one goal and one goal only and
that is to control every single aspect of your life. They will try and seize every bit of
your retirement savings through taxes and fees for their own enrichment. They will sell out
America at every turn only to enrich themselves. If they ever regain power they will unleash
unimaginable carnage on America and you are all regardless of your political party Fodder for
their fire.
A vote for any Democrat is a vote for your own and our Country's demise.
"... You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power. ..."
"... You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did. ..."
"... This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth. You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution. ..."
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats
in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers,
unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.
The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional
theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened
the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!
By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution,
and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification
scheme -- yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy
that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans
of faith by continually saying "I pray for the President," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative
sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!
Your first claim, "Abuse of Power," is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination. You know
that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted,
mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented. Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from
the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: "I
would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it." I said do
us a favor, not me , and our country , not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.
Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.
You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate
than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.
You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing
the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it
on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm
leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe
Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing
me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.
President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further emphasized that
it was a "good phone call," that "I don't feel pressure," and explicitly stressed that "nobody pushed me." The Ukrainian Foreign
Minister stated very clearly: "I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance." He also said there
was "No Pressure." Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said:
"At no time during this meeting was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything
in return for the military aid." Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country. Never once did
Ukraine complain about pressure being applied -- not once! Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: "No quid pro quo. I want
nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on."
The second claim, so-called "Obstruction of Congress," is preposterous and dangerous. House Democrats are trying to impeach the
duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan
basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation's history. Under that standard, every American president
would have been impeached many times over. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats:
"I can't emphasize this enough if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it
is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the President for doing."
Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College
landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what
many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the
verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn
the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!
Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for "two
and a half years," long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office,
the Washington Post published a story headlined, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun." Less than three months
after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, "I'm going to fight every day until he's impeached." House Democrats
introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our
country's best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports) -- who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest
cops our Nation has ever seen. A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office,
"We're gonna go in there and we're gonna impeach the motherf****r." Representative Al Green said in May, "I'm concerned that if we
don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before
you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine. As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to
do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president. It only has to do with your attempt to undo
the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!
Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out
of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said
by me. His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.
You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market,
soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever
unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice
and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation
cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch
of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a
defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world's number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous
NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade
deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate
Accord; becoming the world's top energy producer; recognition of Israel's capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release,
and the building of the Southern Border Wall -- and that is just the beginning, there is so much more. You cannot defend your extreme
policies -- open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term
taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan
obstruction of both common sense and common good.
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know
that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire
force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING! Few people in high
position could have endured or passed this test. You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon
wonderful and loving members of my family. You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United
States, and you are doing it yet again.
There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the
success of America and its citizens. But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further.
You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along,
the phone call with Ukraine -- even though it was a perfect call. And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many
people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing
Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies
claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other. You forced
our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton
and the DNC in order to assault our democracy. Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into
dust, you did not apologize. You did not recant. You did not ask to be forgiven. You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection.
Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade -- you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person.
All of this was motivated by personal political calculation. Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged
and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger -- this is
what is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our country down with
your party.
If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing
the full truth concerning the FBI's horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election -- including the use of
spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order
to frame the innocent. The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt. I would think that you would
personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment
effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that "all roads lead to Putin," when you know that is
an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.
Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment -- against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle
-- is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. Our Founders feared the
tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.
Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until
the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence,
to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who
started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.
Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be
presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud,
and they were no longer going to be made available to us. In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew
up, but that didn't stop you from continuing.
More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.
You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan -- it is not. You said it was very divisive --
it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible -- and it will only get worse!
This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.
You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party
is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy
will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.
Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People
that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. No intelligent person
believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There
is no reticence. This is not a somber affair. You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred
of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans. The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through
this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election. They will
not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.
There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens. It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats
in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation
that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it
can never happen to another President again.
Sincerely yours,
DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America
cc: United States Senate
United States House of Representatives
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats antithetical to the very principles
that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the Dems claim to support. Someone please
tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of history itself. Our Founding Fathers
would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you
sir.
ext-content expanded"> I've never heard a more brilliant or eloquent summary and analysis of the Impeachment case. Sloppy,
hurried, careless without regard for due process, the Democrats in 12 weeks have committed an abuse of their constitutional authority
and to the spirit of historical precedent regarding impeachment as a weapon to use just because you don't like the President.
This group of democrats have done serious damage to our government.
DemoRats became the second War party. Which means two parties merged on this issue forming
Uniparty, like in the USSR.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans well being does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying jobs.
They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out like a
garbage.
Counting dollars they got from MIC and Wall Street they are oblivious to the growing danger
of converting the USA and Russia territories into radioactive desert. That does not bather them
one bit. They have shelters, You don't. Vote accordingly. .
But all of these fundamental democratic issues have been excluded from the
Democrats' impeachment drive, which is centered on claims that Trump has been insufficiently
aggressive in fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
"In the end, this impeachment is the first over a question of whether the president is
selling out American national security," writes David Sanger in the New York Times.
"While Ukraine is the proximate event, how the president has dealt with Mr. Putin is the
overarching theme."
Sanger concludes, "the argument about Ukraine, the ostensible reason for the president's
impeachment, was not really about Ukraine at all. It was about Russia."
But it was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff -- the pivotal figure in the
impeachment drive -- who left no question about the central demand of the Democratic Party for
an escalation of the US conflict with Russia.
"Ukraine is fighting our fight against the Russians, against their expansionism. That's our
fight, too." Schiff said. "We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. I know the party of Ronald
Reagan used to."
"That's why we support Ukraine with the military aid that we have," Schiff continued. "The
President may not care about it, but we do. We care about our defense, we care about the
defense of our allies, and we darn well care about our constitution."
Nowhere has anyone explained why Ukraine's war with Russia should be "our fight, too," or
why the failure to fight this war to the Democrats' satisfaction constitutes an impeachable
offense.
The Democrats' attempt to remove Trump aims to legitimize an intense escalation of the US
conflict with Russia, a policy for which there exists no support among the mass of the
population.
The Democratic Party is aware of the broad popular hatred of the Trump administration. But
what this party of the rich and affluent fears far more than Trump's reelection is a mass
mobilization to remove him, which would inevitably challenge their own wealth and the
capitalist system.
In the terms defined by the Democrats, the impeachment has no democratic or legitimate
content. The complete remoteness from and indifference to any popular sentiment or demands
gives it the character of a palace coup. The innumerable claims by various Democrats that their
impeachment constitutes a defense of democracy are both unconvincing and untrue.
Even as they have moved ahead with their impeachment drive, the Democrats have worked with
Trump to expand the military, gut congressional restrictions on the use of military force, and
expand his immigration crackdown. On Tuesday, they approved the largest military budget in US
history, and on Thursday, the day after the impeachment, they plan to pass USMCA (United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), a trade war measure targeting China.
As the impeachment votes were being cast, Trump was in Battle Creek, Michigan, making a
violent, demagogic and fascistic appeal to his supporters. Trump echoed the letter he had
earlier sent to the House of Representatives in which he accused the Speaker of the House of
"declaring open war on American Democracy."
But in excluding all democratic issues that would succeed in mobilizing the population
against Trump, the Democrats have actually played into the hands of the President, who has
sought to mobilize his fascistic base on the grounds that he is a victim of a "deep state"
plot.
The central lie peddled by Trump is to equate the Democrats' efforts to remove him --
together with those of the intelligence agencies and media -- with socialism. This is his label
for any form of popular opposition to his administration. In the traditions of fascism, Trump
falsely presents himself as the victim of a conspiracy between the "elites," socialists and
communists.
Whatever the outcome of the impeachment crisis, it will see a dangerous further movement of
American politics to the right. If the Democrats fail to remove Trump -- as seems likely -- it
will strengthen him. If they somehow succeed in orchestrating Trump's removal, it would be seen
as illegitimate by broad sections of the population, and would virtually guarantee an
escalation of military conflict with Russia.
Whatever its outcome, the impeachment must be seen in context of the greatest crisis of
American capitalism since the Civil War. In their own way, both parties represent the twin
imperatives of American imperialism under conditions of social crisis and the loss of its
global hegemony.
The Democrats embody the drive to war; the Republicans, in the form of Trump, embody the
move toward fascistic and authoritarian forms of rule.
The fight against Trump can only unfold on the basis of a social and political struggle
rooted in the working class. The essential prerequisite for the emergence of such a movement is
a total and unequivocal break with the Democratic and Republican parties. The attitude of the
working class to this impeachment must be, amending Shakespeare, "A plague on both political
parties."
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats
antithetical to the very principles that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the
Dems claim to support. Someone please tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll
wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of
history itself. Our Founding Fathers would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to
the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you sir.
If anyone was watching The Horowitz hearing in the senate today it would be hard to conclude
that RussiaGate and Ukrainegate will not have serious consequences going forward.
The whole sordid, nasty conspiracy seems on the verge of being exposed, maybe as high as
Obama himself, although he is just a puppet himself, and indictments are sure to follow. I
don't see how anyone could think that this will not be catastrophic for the democratic
party.
All pretense of our country being a representative democracy@snoopydawg
is gone. Our two party uniparty government has completely turned its back on serving
the needs of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of the wider world. Profit
sits at the head of our government. The monikers "Fascist" and "Totalitarian" are apt
descriptors of the direction of our current trajectory. A dystopian future surely awaits us on
this beautiful, fragile and life sustaining planet that we are trashing with such abandon.
Other than that, things are going quite nicely. Nancy is wearing her power pants and fools
are applauding.
It still amazes me... that people actually think impeachment accomplishes anything other
than diverting attention from the Dems giving Trump everything he wants.
Kayfabe.
Impeachment without conviction means next to nothing.
The Senate will not convict. Trumps chances of being re-elected are continuing to improve as
Democratic Party insiders work overtime to see to it that Bernie Sanders has to fight the
Republican Party, a MSM that either dismisses or ignores his candidacy, AND the Democratic
Party which has, once again, stacked the deck against him.
... Never-Trump conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin released a scorching
assessment ... "Even Trump knows he will be lumped in with the 'losers' in the presidential
history rankings such as Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson," wrote Rubin. "Impeachment will
define his presidency, dwarfing any other foreign or domestic action. No wonder he rages
against a speaker he is powerless to stop. His worst nightmare is to be humiliated, and if
not now, history certainly will regard him as a pitiful, damaged man utterly unfit for the
role he won through a series of improbable events ... Just as Watergate figures ... were
lionized as defenders of the Constitution, so too will Pelosi and House Democrats ... be
among those admired for their lucidity, intellect and character. ... For every clownish,
contemptible, screeching and dishonest House Republican, there is a sober, admirable,
restrained and honest Democrat.
"No letter, no tweet, no Fox News spin can repair the reputations of Trump enablers," Rubin
wrote. The right-wing media that cheered them on will, like outlets that rooted for Jim Crow
and demonized Freedom Riders, be shunned by decent, freedom-loving people who reaffirm
objective reality. The Republican Party will be known not as the Party of Lincoln but the
Party of Trump, a quisling party that lost its bearings and its soul to defend an unhinged
narcissist.
The Trump Card was and is a masterstroke of scripting live, non-stop, divisive, politically
paralytic distraction while the US oligarchy goes all-tard-in for private power.
Since the whole impeachment farce already has been a political loser for the idiot Democrats,
they'd have to be doubly stupid to double down on political stupidity by obstructing the
transmission to the Senate, when most Americans just want this crap to be over with.
Meanwhile the Senate Republicans, once they get the charges, would be stupid to do
anything but vote them down immediately. Otherwise they'll become complicit in the odious
circus and rightly incur their share of the political blame.
So from now on the party which hold the House can start impeachment process on false premises
the day the President from other party was elected. As simple as that.
That open a huge can to worms for future Presidents,
Notable quotes:
"... Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and that isn't good for the future ..."
I don't know anything about politics but i know that impeaching a president with radical
fans might not be the smartest move for a country that's all ready divided , just my
opinion.
The claim its a danger to our constitution when they have no pronlem with infringing our
2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment and pledge to do away with the elctorial college...
Hypocrisy
Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we
have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for
nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and
that isn't good for the future
Trump is doing a great job,and doing every thing he promises. The only high crime was
defying Dems authority.He has become a clear and present danger to their chances of ever
winning another election.
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
"... Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering his bankrupt PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma. ..."
"... Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been on the agents. Given the way in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been eager to get the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the
U.S. Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which
had been founded in March 2017 by liberals (really by the main billionaires who fund the
Democratic Party) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (to Republican billionaires). The
now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made as difficult as possible for news-media to
pick up on and report about the contents of this dump; they did this by providing only a
photographic image of each page, impossible on most systems to do any "Edit" "Find"; and also
impossible to perform any "Edit" "Copy" "Paste" of any quotation from the document.
Consequently, I made the first copy of that document to the Web Archive, in order to expedite
its coming onscreen, and I am herewith pasting below an extended passage in the document, which
I then manually transcribed from it, where President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on
January 23, 25, and 26, took depositions from both Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced in
April 2016 to be fired as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also from Yuriy Lutsenko, who
replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a one-billion-dollar
donation from America's taxpayers to the then-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian
Government of Ukraine.
Shokin/Lutsenko Notes
U.S. Department of State
January 23, 2019
445 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Shokin:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General
Prosecutor of Ukraine was conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani,
Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George Boyle. The conversation was conducted through
the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev Parnas in New York. The sum
and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine
from 2015 until April of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice
President of the United States. Mr. Shokin was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the
General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola Zlochevsky the former
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. The case was opened as a result of Mr.
Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky
is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr. Shokin
stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is
listed, with the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following
complaints are in the criminal case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine
without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for
gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings
and gave those companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the
sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made
in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States
Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect
himself.
Mr. Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr.
Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S.
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white
gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing. On or about September 2015, Mr.
Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated correctly
and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three
million dollars were frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents
were prepared and the money was released so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office.
That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above cases again. Mr. Shokin stated
that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April of 2016 Mr. Shokin was
dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by
the current Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of
multiple people in Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which
nothing was received. It is believed that Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one
million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not
in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office
and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on
the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told
him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden
told Mr. Poroshenko that he had evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired.
Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the U.S. aid was delivered within one and one
half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch
denied his visa to travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr.
Shokin also stated that there were leaks by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State
Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated that there is possible deceit
in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
–
January 25, 2019 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022
Yuriy Lutsenko:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was
present at 445 Park Av e, New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He
was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the
Minister of Interior from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two
and one half years as a political prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
1 Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two
thousand six hundred thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to
explain that there is a unit called Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which
has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau Ukraine (NABU) which investigates
corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that the current
U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU. He feels they are good organizations but have terrible
leadership. His office has absolutely no control over SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they
are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is
honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at
(mentioned above) and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation
from Burisma. He produced a document from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were
distributed out of Burisma's account. The record showed two (2) companies and four (4)
individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in disbursements, as follows [the
breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor
Generals' Office.
Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was
present at 445 Park ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one
specific mention which was not vague and which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A
"system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine, have it laundered, and then
collect the laundered money. These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell
companies. He further stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located off shore, and
that two of them had approximately seven billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton
Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of the beneficiaries were
pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre- coup Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the
decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold to him
most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February
2014 coup, Ihor Kolomoysky.
And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering his
bankrupt PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance
that might still be entailed in Burisma.
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to
continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose it and to go after both Obama
and Kolomoysky, and abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does decide to go
after the principlals in the case, then he'll have to expose who were the actual principals,
and who were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has
been on the agents. Given the way in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that
data-dump, Trump has not been eager to get the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the
Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has likewise done nothing to
facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
On the Republican side, Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee,
was the first Republican to respond, accusing the Dems of running an unfair and deeply partisan
impeachment inquiry...
"This is an impeachment based on presumption," Mr. Collins said. "This is a poll-tested
impeachment about what actually sells to the American people. Today is going to be a lot of
things. What it is not is fair. What it is not is about the truth."
...While failing to prove their case against Trump.
...fully one half of Americans believe the president is innocent, and that the impeachment
push is merely a politically calculated smear job.
Trump started to play victim and this is really dangerous situation fro neoliberal democrats,
as he is a master in this genre. The President Doth Protest Too Much. While the Schiff
impeachment trial was neocon clowns show, he did committed crimes while in office (Douma false
flag, Oil grab in syria, Yeamen, etc) . But both Republicans and DemoRats are ob board for those,
and are afraid to talk about the real issues, converting impeachment into a second rate Kabuki
theatre
Pelosi now probably has the second thought about impeachment. There is a profound belief
among neoliberal Dems that politically things for them are much worse than they really are. but
while neoliberal is dead people still are voting for those jerks became the other party is even
worse.
Looks like neoliberal Democrats (aka DemoRats) made a political mistake
Notable quotes:
"... "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history." ..."
"... Maybe we should rename the Trump impeachment and call it what it really is... ..."
The following are ten of the key highlights from that letter
#1 "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by
Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative
history."
#2 "By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office,
you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on
American Democracy."
#3 "Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith
by continually saying you pray for the President when you know this statement is not true,
unless it is meant in a negative sense."
#4 "You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of
US aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company
paying his son millions of dollars."
#5 "Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has
admitted he actually did."
#6 "You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump
Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it!"
#7 "You view democracy as your enemy!"
#8 "You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting
America's Democracy."
#9 "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials."
#10 "Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment against every shred of
truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle, is showing how deeply they revile the voters and
how truly they detest America's Constitutional order."
If you would like to read the entire letter for yourself, you can find it
right here . It only takes a few minutes to read, and I think that most of you will find it
very enjoyable.
... ... ...
Following Trump's letter, Pelosi sent out one of her own to her Democratic colleagues asking
them to join her on the House floor
on Wednesday morning
... ... ...
Pelosi and her minions intended to destroy Donald Trump, but they may have just guaranteed
him four more years in the White House. And for Trump, that would be the sweetest revenge of all.
"Trump definitely understands that the primary reason why they are trying to impeach
him is because they deeply hate him..."
"Hate" may be a useful shorthand here, but it really has nothing to do with what's going
on. "Drain the swamp" is useful shorthand, too, that means Trump is shutting off the flow of
billions of dollars in corrupt money to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, and threatening
to properly prosecute them for their crimes. The impeachment is really another crime waiting
to be prosecuted, where the legislative branch has been hijacked to commit obstruction of
justice on behalf of themselves.
When a Chief Justice Reminded Senators in an Impeachment Trial That They Were not Jurors
December 18, 2019
•
4
Comments
Save
With an eye on Trump's impeachment trial, Steven Lubet points out that senators at such
a trial are not the equivalent of a jury and are not held to a juror's standard of neutrality.
Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., fields questions from reporters about an impeachment trial in the Senate,
Dec. 10, 2019. (
AP/J.
Scott Applewhite
)
S
enate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell created a predictable
stir
when he told
Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would structure the impending impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump in "total coordination with the White House counsel's office." He added, "There will be no
difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this."
This outright rejection of
neutrality drew immediate protests from Democrats. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.),
who may well be one of the House impeachment managers
in the Senate trial, called for McConnell's recusal,
saying
"No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to
also serve as the accused's defense attorney."
House Judiciary Committee
Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) likewise
slammed
"the foreman of the jury" for saying he would "work hand and glove with the defense attorney."
Demings and Nadler made a
valid point, but they used the wrong analogy. Senators at an impeachment trial are not the equivalent of a jury and
they are not held to a juror's standard of neutrality.
Tasked with delivering an
opening statement for the House Managers – who present the House's case to the Senate –
Rep. Robert Barr (R-Ga.) reminded the senators
of Clinton's tendency to "nitpick" over details or "parse a
specific word or phrase of testimony." To Barr, the conclusion was obvious: "We urge you, the distinguished jurors in
this case, not to be fooled."
"
Mr.
Chief Justice
,"
he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial,
"
I
object to the use
and the continued use of the word 'jurors' when referring to the Senate."
Sen.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, raised a crucial point about senators' roles in the impeachment trial of President Clinton in
1999. (
AP/Joe
Marquette)
He explained that
"the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a
jury."
Instead, Harkin continued,
"What we do here today does not just decide the fate of one man. Future generations will look back on this trial
not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions."
"The Senate is not simply a
jury," he ruled. "It is a court in this case."
Rehnquist thus admonished
the House Managers "to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors." For the balance of the trial, they were
called "triers of law and fact."
Rehnquist and Harkin got it
right.
Article III of the
Constitution
provides that "Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury," and
for good reasons.
Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist, shown in this video image, presides in the impeachment trial of President Clinton on
the Senate floor, Feb. 8, 1999, in Washington.
(
AP
Photo/APTN)
Recognizing the Senate's
all-encompassing responsibility, and his own limited role, Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to himself throughout the
proceeding only as
"
the
Chair
."
As the U.S. Supreme Court
has
put
it
, impeachment presents a "political question," in which all of the "authority is reposed in the Senate
and nowhere else."
Oath or Affirmation
Required
McConnell, the Senate's
leader, has more leeway and far more power than any juror or even a jury foreperson.
The Constitution's only
procedural limitation is the requirement in
Article I
that
the senators be placed under "oath or affirmation."
Although the Constitution
does not specify any particular wording (unlike
the
presidential oath
, which is included word-for-word), the Senate
adopted
rules for impeachment trials in 1986
requiring each senator to affirm or swear to do "impartial justice
according to the Constitution and laws."
"Impartial justice" does
not demand the enforced naiveté of jury service, which would be impossible in an impeachment trial. For example, the
senators all have prior knowledge of at least some of the facts, and several of them are currently vying to run
against Trump in 2020, while others are backing his reelection campaign.
But the Senate's oath of
impartiality clearly calls for at least some commitment to objectivity. Thus, the problem with McConnell's
announcement was not that he failed to behave like a juror.
Rather, he has declared an
intention to disregard the Senate's prescribed oath, which was fixed long ago by the very body that elected him its
leader.
When Tom Harkin disclaimed
a juror's role at the Clinton trial, his purpose was not to affect the outcome of the case, but rather to underscore
the full scope of the Senate's decision-making responsibility. In contrast, Mitch McConnell appears to have boldly
renounced open-mindedness itself on the impeachment court, whether as juror, judge or "trier of law and fact."
When they got Clinton, it felt like a big deal. Now, it's just another episode in the Kabuki
threat of Washington, DC
"Anyway, when the hammer came down on Bill Clinton (21 years ago tomorrow, in fact), it felt
right. Justice had been served. Two months later, the GOP-run Senate would acquit Clinton of the
charges. He served out the rest of his term, and went on to become very rich, a globalist grifter
of great renown. One day, he will die peacefully in bed. His bed, one hopes. Life went on."
"I hate that we have such a lowlife as the American president. But do you know what else I
hate? That the Democratic Party went crazy over the last 20 years. That it's for open borders.
That the Democratic Party is for writing into federal civil rights law the destruction of one of
the most fundamental building blocks of human civilization: the gender binary. I hate that the
Democrats are so drunk on identity politics that a Democratic-run government would create a legal
and policy framework in which my own sons would be considered public enemies because of the color
of their skin, their sex, and depending on the context, their religion."
TRUMP WILL WIN THIS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION AND IN THE SENATE, WHERE IT WILL BE
CODIFIED.
Trump and Mitch are actually doing the democrats a favor by throwing this crap out in the
Senate after a very short debate. Otherwise, if by the tiniest of margins some of the repubs
turn on Trump because they too are guilty of crimes against humanity which many will be found
to be, the resultant pitch-fork mobs would rip them apart...
Democrats just sent a strong message to people. Don't investigate crooks named Biden. Just
don't touch this. Biden must walk free and any person who dares to challenge crooks,
Democratic party crooks, or any other crooks is now to face Democrats.
Good guy named Trump dared to ask a foreign country to investigate corrupted crooks. Bad
idea.
It is no longer democratic thing to defend the law, preserve and promote honesty, not to
mention integrity and ethics. Nah. Vote for Democrats, because they support mafia, sell guns
to criminals, vigorously defend crooks in power and make no mistake - they laugh at Americans
every day.
Trump is no saint, but for gods sake impeach because of Bidens? My God.
Some House Democrats push Pelosi to withhold impeachment articles, delaying Senate
trial
"WASHINGTON -- A group of House Democrats is pushing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other
leaders to withhold the articles of impeachment against President Trump that emerged from the
House on Wednesday, potentially delaying a Senate trial for months.
The notion of impeaching Trump but holding the articles in the House has gained traction
among some of the political left as a way to potentially force Senate majority leader Mitch
McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, to conduct a trial on more favorable terms for Democrats.
And if no agreement is reached, some have argued, the trial could be delayed indefinitely,
denying Trump an expected acquittal.
The gambit has gained some traction inside the left wing of the House Democratic Caucus
this week. Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said Wednesday, as his
colleagues debated the impeachment articles on the House floor, that he has spoken to three
dozen Democratic lawmakers who expressed some level of enthusiasm for the idea of ''rounding
out the record and spending the time to do this right.''
''At a minimum, there ought to be an agreement about access to witnesses, rules of the
game, timing,'' Blumenauer said of a Senate trial.
Another Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal
deliberations, said there is ''serious concern about whether there will be a fair trial on
the Senate side'' and acknowledged active talks about withholding the articles.
After the impeachment vote Wednesday, Pelosi would not rule out the idea of withholding
the articles.
The notion has been most prominently advocated by Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School
professor who has advised the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment process. In a
recent Washington Post op-ed, he wrote that ''the public has a right to observe a meaningful
trial rather than simply learn that the result is a verdict of not guilty.''..."
The Dems have given Trump's insane military budget more than he asked for, they got no
bargains in renewing the NDAA (both of which betray the lie they think Trump is compromised),
and finalized a huge new trade deal with him.
The impeachment farce and most of the battle
with Trump is kabuki for the rubes. Business as usual continues in DC, except the swamp
realizes more and more that their grip on power is slipping. They are far more frightened of
Bernie Sanders. These are dangerous times.
"The Democrats did the "right" thing - considering their options.
Option A: Counter Trump with real policy issues; policies that the majority of Americans
support: ending unending wars, healthcare, environmental protection, income equality, etc..
But that would cost them money from their BIG DONORS, and as such all privileges of the Dem
bosses. Not a good option
Option B: Follow the Russiagate/Ukrainegate/Impeachment path and thereby avoid having to
oppose Trump on policy. Their BIG DONORS are happy (because there is no policy change). Even
if the Dems lose 2020 election, the party bosses still retain their privileges.
Disclaimer: The Dims and the Repugs are the same party - just two different brands of it.
Anyone doubting this assertion should check out who finance them .... big oligarchy, even if
there may be slight differences in composition.
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Dec 18 2019 23:07 utc | 31
This IMO is the best synopsis posted to date. Salient, and to the point. Thanks NM!!
"... But as we know it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown makeup and join the circus. ..."
"... But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any and all who resist their attempt to rule the world. ..."
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard did the smart thing and abstained in the vote from the circus. But as we know
it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown
makeup and join the circus.
But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is
also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state
of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any
and all who resist their attempt to rule the world.
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its
more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
But also may I compliment Kali@18 and Russ@19 for their terrific comments. I have just
finished reading the link provided by Kali, which is an outstanding essay by Pam Ho- a
paradigm shifter if ever there was one! I have been making a determined effort to liberate my
thinking from ideological partisanship and reading this essay was like pressing a refresh
button in my brain.
Despite the ra ra b. s.,Trump's letter will become an historical document, as it does
encapsulate all the manufactured tribulations that have been foisted on his presidency,
though I would have liked b to include all those words which were CAPITALIZED. He's quite a
personality, your president The best summation of the man is, curiosly enough, provided by
Syria's president Assad. There is an honesty about him even when he's uttering a bald-faced
lie!
Tulsi has been newsworthy for a number of years now and right from the getgo I said to
myself "she's my kind of gal"
Here is a woman of courage and presence. She's young and principled, even if she's a
member of a very corrupted party.
@ Posted by: Australian lady | Dec 19 2019 3:26 utc | 71 who ended her comment expressing
support for Tulsi Gabbard
When the impeachment vote was taken today, there were two Dems that voted against and
Tulsi voted Present
She will be ostracized for her non vote but I give her credit for distancing herself from
the impeachment circus. Given that she has stated that she won't run again for Congress, I
speculate that she may jump to the Green Party if given the chance to run ahead of or with
Jill Stein.....any barflies know how the Greens are shaping up for this coming election?
I read in a couple of places today that the strategy of the Dems is to not forward the
impeachment to the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time......let the stew, the Senate
and Trump simmer a bit.....more kabuki for the masses while the public continues to be
screwed economically.
That can increase Trump popularity further, as it portrays DemRats as unprincipled, dirty political Schemers, Washington pond scam,
so to speak. Two gangs fighting for dominance while nation became poorer and poorer.
They failed (or more correctly were too afraid as it implicates them too) to discuss real issues on which Trump could be impeached
and not Pelosi gambit backfired.
Notable quotes:
"... "How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses an immediate threat to our elections? Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?" ..."
"We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment,"
Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.
" We cannot name [impeachment] managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side."
She added that "so far, we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us" in the Senate.
Nancy Pelosi:
"We have legislation approved...that will enable to decide how we send over the articles of impeachment."
The
Conservative Treehouse blog describes this as a "cunning Lawfare ploy" that was a "pre-planned procedural process by design."
"Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment
case sits in limbo."
"The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House
to the Senate. Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate
captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President. "
This additional evidence could include Mueller grand jury material, a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn and
less Trump's financial and tax records.
Knowing that the Senate will never vote to impeach Trump, Democrats plan to use the House impeachment vote as yet another tool
with which to undo the results of the 2016 election, keeping Trump under a permanent cloud of suspicion right through 2020.
However, as Byron York noted rather pointedly, this is entirely disingenuous considering the Democrats pre-impeachment utterances:
"How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses
an immediate threat to our elections? Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?"
And remember, the public is now against impeachment broadly...
Mitch doesn't need Nanzi to "send" anything over to the Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that " The Senate shall have
the sole Power to try all Impeachments. " Art. I, Sec. 3. That power is not dependent on the House "sending" anything to the
Senate. Moreover, the Articles of Impeachment have been published, and the House vote has been published, so the Senate can print
those off and start the trial today . Get on with it, Mitch, and dismiss this charade.
This is just more unconstitutional behavior and yet another attempt by house Dems to usurp power the constitution does not
grant to them:
"The Senate shall the time and place of the trial"
If turtle doesn't get the show on the road, Trump will have to force the issue. However the turtle acknowledged that the Senate
must act in a way which throughly rebukes the Dems for this attempt to lower the bar and prevent it from moving forward.
If she doesn't send the impeachment articles to the Senate then that is something the founding fathers didn't anticipate. If
not resolved the Supreme Court could get involved to define the gray into black and white. I could see Trump taking it to the
courts.
On another note it is pretty funny to see Pelosi griping about the unfairness of McConnell coordinating with the white house
while at the same time coordinating with Schumer.
"Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment
case sits in limbo."
What the hell is going on? What new evidence are they gathering? The House voted and they impeached. There is no ongoing investigation
any longer. They cannot reconvene.
The Republican Senate, must do its duty and move forward to the conclusion on this, as quickly as possible.
Pelosi is clearly overreaching by trying to control the Senate. McConnell should remind her that she is not a Senator, and
should stick to controlling her own chamber.
McConnell should also have the Senate pass a resolution that any measures passed by the House must be turned over to the Senate
within 30 days, or the Senate will dismiss such measures as void and invalid.
The Democrats and Republicans are well aware of what is coming. They hope these acts of desperation will somehow delay the
inevitable. Most Americans aren't prepared for the level of corruption, deceit and debauchery that will be exposed. It's almost
time to pay the piper. It is going to shock the world.
Criminally manufactured treasonous conspiracy with fraud perpetrated by DNI/IG Atkins, Ciaramella and Brennan, Schiff, Pelosi,
Nadler, and Obama cohorts and holdovers.
This gets described and prosecuted in their conspiratorial sedition if it goes to Full senate.
They don't dare send it, because they will be arrested, and may be subject to grand jury even before then on FISA related findings.
All the Democrats have is Impeachment. Without it they have nothing to do until November. So, they plan to Impeach President
Trump again, and maybe another time after that to run out the clock.
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution,
an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President
@realdonaldTrump .
Going to have to have an amendment to the Constitution. No open ended impeachment motions. Time limitation on when the
House sends impeachment motion to the Senate, after Congress passes motion for impeachment.
I would hope this goes to the supreme court and they rule that this denies the right to a speedy trial. Because the senate
vote is actually considered a trial.
Pelosi risk to turn the case into personal vendetta and DemoRats will be burned as the
result. McConnell just need to wait a couple on months as time works for him.
This pressure from Pelosi actually helps Trump opening interesting lines of the attack:
"McConnell said on the Senate floor that Pelosi and House Democrats "may be too afraid to even
transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate." Trump tweeted as Pelosi spoke Thursday
morning, saying that "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she is afraid to
present it to the Senate".
The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party
Notable quotes:
"... she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial. ..."
41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"--US Dept. of
Agriculture. That number of people constituted a crisis for FDR when he delivered his One-Third
of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded on that issue in
his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear.
Faced with a similar situation, Trump advances plans to cut more people from the food stamp
program thus increasing immiseration. One might say Trump's out of step with traditional
American values; but were Obama, Bush, or Clinton any better?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday extended her standoff with Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell over starting President Donald Trump 's impeachment trial,
insisting she's waiting to see whether Republicans will agree to a "fair" process.
Pelosi surprised many House Democrats Wednesday night after the House impeached Trump when
she said she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in
the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial.
"When we see what they have, we'll know who and how many we will send over," she said at a
news conference Thursday. Pelosi cast it as a procedural matter and cited the Senate's
ability to come up with a bipartisan trial plan after President Bill Clinton was
impeached.
... ... ...
McConnell and other GOP senators have been indicating they want a quick
trial, with arguments presented by the House managers and Trump's counsel without witnesses.
McConnell was giving no ground.
"It's beyond me how the speaker and Democratic leader in the Senate think withholding the
articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage," he told reporters at
the Capitol. "Frankly, I'm not anxious to have the trial."
... ... ...
McConnell called the House impeachment process rushed and shoddy.
"If the speaker ever gets her house in order, that mess will be dumped in the Senate's
lap," he said on the Senate floor. "If the nation accepts this, presidential impeachments may
cease being a once-in-a-generation event."
World News is reporting that
the US House of (Non) Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump on two
counts, "Abuse of Power" and "Impeding Congress".
(Never mind that the US Congress itself is the source of almost all the impeding Congress
faces!)
Please feel free to add any and all new details in the Essay's Comments.
regarding the failure of the house to move the articles of impeachment to the Senate I recommend reading:
theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/18 article entitled:
cunning-lawfare-maneuver-house-will-withhold-submission-of-articles-from-senate/
The article breaks down the legal strategy behind Pelosi's move, the strategy is quite clever, evil actually and the article
tracks how it was done, what it means and what it will allow the Dems to do; well worth a read.
I agree that this is the likely outcome. Surer than Hillary winning the 2016 election. It would mean that Pelosi, Schiff, et.
al. are really politically stupid.
Which makes me wonder. The obviousness of this losing hand, and the fact that the most politically-seasoned, can't-be-that-stupid
Democrats seem determined to play it out, has my paranoid political Spidey senses all atingle. What are the cards they're not
showing? What lies beneath the thin ice of these Articles of Impeachment? If the apparent agenda makes no sense, look for the
hidden. Something that better explains why Pelosi, et. al. find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they
think they can succeed in doing that.
There is one thing that I can think of that drives such frantic urgency: War. That would also explain why Trump's "national
security" problem -- embedded in the focus on Ukraine arms shipments, Russian aggression, etc. -- is the real issue, the whistle
to Republican war dogs. But if so, the Ukro-Russian motif is itself a screen for another "national security"/war issue that cannot
be stated explicitly. There's no urgency about aggression towards Russia. There is for Iran.
So here's my entirely speculative tea-leaf reading: If there's a hidden agenda behind the urgency to remove Trump, one
that might actually garner the votes of Republican Senators, it is to replace him with a president who will be a more reliable
and effective leader for a military attack on Iran that Israel wants to initiate before next November. Spring is the cruelest
season for launching wars.
From my article: Impeachment:
What Lies Beneath?
Trump's chances of being convicted in the Senate are essentially zero (though we're sure
Mitch McConnell will enjoy the leverage that presiding over such a trial will inevitably
bring). And on Wednesday night, as the Dems voted to impeach, Trump told supporters in Battle
Creek exactly what they wanted to hear. That the Dems were the real lawbreakers, having abused
the Constitutional process to persecute a president against whom they harbor an almost
pathological antipathy.
"This lawless, partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democratic
party," Trump told supporters in Battle Creek, Michigan, a Republican stronghold that helped
him win the traditionally Democratic state in 2016.
Across the battleground states of the midwest, polls and anecdotal evidence suggest Trump
will have the upper hand in 2020. Some 52% of registered Wisconsin voters oppose Trump's
impeachment and removal from office, according to a recent Marquette University Law School
poll. The amount who support impeachment is just 40%.
Independent voters across the state sing Trump's praises.
Trump also enjoys a receptive audience across swaths of Wisconsin. Dawn Anderson, 60, said
that she and her husband are independents who voted for Trump in 2016 and can't wait to do it
again next year.
"I'm mad," she said in an interview outside a Woodman's Markets grocery store in Kenosha.
"He shouldn't have to defend himself the way he is."
Trump won Wisconsin by some 22,000 votes in 2016, a margin of less than 1%. It was the first
time a Republican won the state since 1984.
When discussing the impact of impeachment on Trump's share of the vote in Wisconsin, one
Republican Party official in the state compared the impact of impeachment to the impact of the
recall vote on Gov. Scott Walker, which also galvanized the state's conservatives to take a
stand against Democrats who were believed to be unfairly persecuting another. People who never
voted before registered and supported Walker because they were so annoyed at the Democrats.
Trump's letter notes that talk about impeachment started as soon as he stepped into
office:
IMO the Deep State wanted to initiate a new McCarthyism.
Russiagate was the means to do so and that means that Impeachment was always a possibility
(though likely a red-herring, as I explain below).
IMO After the Mueller investigation progressives pressed for Impeachment but establishment
Democratics (led by Pelosi and Hillary) wouldn't allow it. People were (rightfully) asking
why establishment Democrats were protecting Trump.
With this in mind, Ukrainegate is a convenient diversion from Russiagate while providing
the Impeachment satisfaction that progressives had clamored for.
It's difficult NOT to notice that ...
... America First Trump actually furthered Russiagate when he hired Manafort
(who was known to have worked for pro-Russian Parties in Ukraine and had NO recent
experience in US elections) and called upon Russia to publish Hillary's emails (which were
KNOWN to contain top-secret information - making any publication a crime under US law);
... and America First Trump furthered Ukrainegate by the mentioning the
name of an announced political opponent when talking about investigating corruption on a
call with Zelensky.
One might excuse this in many ways: Trump's ego; his unfamiliarity with politics
and statecraft; or just bad luck. But one can also see these actions, in a larger context, as
disturbing part of the effort to initiate the new McCarthyism.
No this contradict Occam razor: the scheme is too complex to implement and which requires
perfect coordination of the actors. This is really two oligarchic gangs struggling for
power.
I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a target
for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who want real
change get sunk
"I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a
target for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who
want real change get sunk."
Pretty much his only domestic policy achievements have been to deliver what Wall Street,
real estate and the oil and gas sector wants. The benefits of the tax cuts and gutting of
enforcement activity by the regulatory agencies (including the IRS) are weighted towards
those industries.
Also, on the foreign policy front, keeping oil prices artificially high by
keeping Iranian and Venezuelan crude off the markets is a boon to the E&P sector.
"... Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's cyber-security. ..."
It would seem that the Democrats need this impeachment circus over and done with before the
end of 2019 so they can concentrate on cleaning up Joe Biden as their Presidential candidate
and pretend he had no history before April 2019 when Volodymyr Zelensky became President of
Ukraine. That must explain their strange and shaky choice of issue on which to try to impeach
Donald Trump: so that during the campaign season,
Biden's past and his son having been on the
Board of Directors of a shady energy company (with a licence to explore and drill for oil in
an area of eastern Ukraine not far from where a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was shot down
in 2014) can be kept off-limits to the MSM and anyone who dares to challenge Biden on his
record. If the President of the United States can be punished for pursuing the Bidens on
their record of corruption, then that alone should (in theory) stop anyone else from pursuing
them.
There are so many other issues on which to impeach Trump but the issue of Joe Biden's
conflict of interest regarding his son's involvement in Burisma Holdings and eastern Ukraine
generally is the weakest and the oddest.
Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure
and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and
Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and
Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's
cyber-security.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Forgive me for the somewhat redundant post, and again I hope this is not a waste of anyone's
time, but this is the source of the Interfax report I posted just above currently at #56. It
is relevant to the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco.
The U.S. and lapdog EU/UK media will not touch this with a 10 foot pole.
KYIV. Dec 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukraine and the United States should investigate
the transfer of $29 million by businessman Victor Pinchuk from Ukraine to the Clinton
Foundation, Ukrainian Member of Parliament (independent) Andriy Derkach has said. According
to him, the investigation should check and establish how the Pinchuk Foundation's
activities were funded; it, among other projects, made a contribution of $29 million to the
Clinton Foundation. "Yesterday, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered criminal
proceeding number 12019000000001138. As part of this proceeding, I provided facts that
should be verified and established by the investigation. Establishing these facts will also
help the American side to conduct its own investigation and establish the origin of the
money received by [Hillary] Clinton," Derkach said at a press conferences at
Interfax-Ukraine in Kyiv on Tuesday, December 17.
According to him, it was the independent French online publication Mediapart that first
drew attention to the money withdrawal scheme from Ukraine and Pinchuk's financing of the
Clinton Foundation.
"The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to
Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357
million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF's disbursement. Delta Bank was
given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria's
Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk
Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv's]
Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at $800
million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred $29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a
future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party," Derkach said.
"... The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill. Tragic. ..."
Thanks b, it sure looks like distraction politics from the avoid doing anything for
people party. I am astounded at how pathetically weak their case is. But most astonishing
is the failure to have the LEAKER not whistleblower attend any public hearing to give
evidence.
We are now well aware of Ciaramella's role in this absurd theatre. But he gives no
evidence, fails to submit to a cross examination. He is a real Star Chamber performer.
The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have
only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are
certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their
electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill.
Tragic.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
"Trump was simply asking new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky -- in a July phone
call -- to investigate crimes at the "highest levels" of both Kiev and Washington," Rudy
Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump, told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham
Angle."
"So, he is being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States,"
he said.
Giuliani told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" that he helped forced out Yovanovitch
because she was corrupt and obstructing the investigation into Ukraine and the Bidens.
Dem's impeachment for innocent conduct is intended to obstruct the below investigations of
Obama-era corruption:
- Billions of laundered $
- Billions, mostly US $, widely misused
- Extortion
- Bribery
- DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump
He told Ingraham that he needed her out of the way because she was corrupt. Giuliani said he
was not the first person to go to the president with concerns about the diplomat.
In more tweets Tuesday, Giuliani elaborated:
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled
Ukrainian collusion.
" Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.
She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at
minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Marie Yovanovitch was dismissed in March after Trump's allies said she was blocking the
probe of Joe Biden and bad-mouthing the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko said that she
gave him a "do not prosecute list", that included Ukraine MPs and the exact same Sorosfunded
NGO president.
Nov 19, 2019Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded
by George Soros. Why?"
Any questions? As Putin warned the US: "ask about the 5th floor of the State Department."
(where Soros held court!). No wonder the US Commies hate Putin.
What the Shiffhead Impeachment hearings demonstrated with the appearances of Ms.
Yankonitbitch, Bowtie George, and the other "Dindunuffin/Donnonuffin Clowns" is just how much
American Taxpayers' money is being wasted employing a bunch of sanctimonious drones who do
nothing but get in the way of progress. Successful Corporations remove dead wood like that
with downsizing and shakeups. But the Federal Government seems immune to efficiency because
our elected officials NEVER DO THEIR JOBS BY USING ZERO BASE BUDGETING TO JUSTIFY EVERY
******* DOLLAR. And so, we now hear of yet another Omnibus Budget being foisted onto American
Taxpayers and more wasteful spending that never, never, never, gets reduced. We need a
Taxpayer's Revolution in this Country to stop the corrupt theft.
And one more thing: What the Ukrainian Matter reveals is how Foreign Aid is dispensed,
handed out by the foreign recipient, and the funds are laundered and kicked back to the
corrupt politicians and Deep State Operatives like the Bidens. If $400 Million in palletized
untraceable cash can be delivered via a clandestine unmarked airplane at night to Iran
supposedly for ransom as the Socialist Media Complex would have us believe in a way that is
not consistent with long practiced methods for funds transfer, can we imagine all the
billions that have quietly been stolen from us to enrich scum like Barack Obola, Quid Pro
Joe, The Clintons, and so many others? IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T GET A DIME TO
SPEND ON BUILDING A WALL TO STOP THE ILLEGAL ALIEN COCKROACH INVASION.
Yovanovitch pulled the "poor me federal" employee act. I worked for the Feds for 31 years
most as a manger and Yovanovitch victim act is what all federal employees pull when they get
in trouble. Blah Blah my 30 years of service, my awards, my appraisals blah blah. She said
that she had no concern about Hunter Biden while being hailed as a corruption fighter. Blah
blah.
It's a crime that State Department people and ambassadors can have the same ethnic origin
as the countries they serve in. It's a recipe for personal/family agendas, corruption and not
representing the best interests of the United States. Of course if you're a DemoRat, you're
always corrupt, as they have proven it is a given.
Rudy Giuliani: Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted.
"Ousted"? I thought the penalty for high treason was hanging. What are they waiting for?
Hang the lot and in a public square near Congress so that all the traitors who reside in
Congress and the highest levels of government and banking get a sense of what awaits
them.
"At the end of the month, almost all criminals arrested for state crimes in New York,
including sex crimes , will be released without posting bail. It is a suicidal policy,
but it is nonetheless the state’s prerogative to engage in such suicide. What is
not its prerogative is the New York law that took effect this week granting
driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and blocking ICE access to criminal enforcement
information. We have a national union with a federal government controlling immigration for a
reason, and it’s time for the Trump administration to show state officials who has the
final say over this issue.
Beginning this week, the NY state government
is inviting any and all illegal aliens , with or without criminal records, to apply for
driver’s licenses. As documentation
, they can offer consular ID cards, which are fraught with fraud, expired work permits, or
foreign birth certificates. They can even offer Border Crossing Cards, which are only valid
for 72 hours and for a stay in the country near the border area! The state law further
prohibits state and county officials from disclosing any information to ICE and bars ICE and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from accessing N.Y. Department of Motor Vehicles (NYDMV)
records and information.
It’s truly hard to overstate the enormity of the public safety crisis this law,
dubbed “the green light law,” will spawn. There are
currently 3.3 million aliens in the ICE non-detained docket who remain at large in this
country. Just in one year, ICE put detainers on aliens criminally charged with 2,500
homicides. Given
that New York has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country, it is
virtually certain that a large number of criminal aliens reside in the state and will now be
offered legal resident documents to shield them from removal.
Some might suggest that this is the problem of New York’s residents and that it is
their job and their responsibility alone to overturn these laws. But the difference between
this law and their general pro-criminal laws is that when it comes to immigration, they
simply lack the power to enact such a policy. Rather than the DHS and DOJ bemoaning these
laws, it’s time for the Trump administration to actually stop them in their tracks.
Otherwise the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is nothing but ink on parchment.
A violation of federal law and the Constitution
8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation
of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or
shield from detection, such alien in any place.” That statute also makes a criminal of
anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United
States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence
is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to
commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding
acts.” Some form of this law has been on the books since 1891.
NY’s new law not only harbors illegal aliens but actually calls on the DMV to notify
illegal aliens of any ICE interest in their files. There is only one purpose of this law: to
tip off criminal alien fugitives that ICE is looking for them, the most literal violation of
the law against shielding them from detection. Would we allow state officials to block
information to the FBI, ATF, or DEA?
Moreover, New York’s Green Light law violates the entire purpose of the infamous
1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which was “to combat
the employment of illegal aliens.” The law specifically makes it “illegal for
employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized
workers.” Yet the rationale for the Green Light Law, according to supporters , was
“getting to work” and “ensure that our industries have the labor they need
to keep our economy moving.” That directly conflicts with federal law.
Finally, 8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits state and local government from “in any way
restrict[ing]
, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” The entire purpose of this bill is to restrict
all New York government entities from sending information on citizenship status to ICE.
Whether one disagrees with immigration laws or not, nobody can argue that the federal
government lacks the power to enforce them. Immigration law is one of the core jobs of the
federal government. People are free to go to any state once they are in the country, which is
why the Founders transferred
immigration policy from the states under the Articles of Confederation to the federal
government under the Constitution.
This is why James Madison in Federalist #42 bemoaned that, under
the Articles of Confederation, there was a “very serious embarrassment” whereby
“an alien therefore legally incapacitated for certain rights in the [one state], may by
previous residence only in [another state], elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one
State, be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of
the other.” He feared that without the Constitution’s new idea of giving the
federal Congress power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
“certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious” would
choose states with weak immigration laws as entry points into the union and then move to any
other state as legal residents or citizens.
As for immigration without naturalization, because of the issue of the slave trade, the
first clause of Article I, Section 9 bars Congress from prohibiting “the Migration or
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit” until the year 1808. Well, Congress has long exercised that power to exclude
over the past 200 years. New York has lacked the ability to maintain its own separate
immigration scheme for quite some time.
When did the federal government become weak in the face of state rebellion?"
The diplomatic service made a big mistake when they abandoned the practice of preventing
people from serving in countries where they have an ethnic connection
jovanivic is part of a rabid Ukrainian diaspora, chased out of the country by the Red Army
for collaboration with the Nazis.
these people have a vicious, insatiable desire for revenge ...and the US does not need
these kind of biases mucking things up
"With impeachment imminent, Kushner has pushed out his enemies, installed allies, and
taken control of the campaign and large swaths of policy -- only Kellyanne Conway is still
pushing back.
Inside the West Wing, Kushner has both eliminated opponents and installed acquiescent
officials. "Jared was very frustrated with [Reince] Priebus and John Kelly," a Republican
close to the White House, said. Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney "was Jared's pick," the
source said, and has allowed Kushner to function as de facto chief of staff. "Mick has
decided not to be in control," a former West Wing official said. "Jared treats Mick like the
help. There's no pushback," a prominent Republican said. John Bolton, who recently mocked
Kushner in a private speech, has been replaced by Robert O'Brien, a Kushner ally. Sources say
that Vice President Mike Pence and his advisers don't challenge Kushner after a string of
leaks that Kushner wanted to replace Pence on the ticket with Nikki Haley. "Pence people look
at Jared apprehensively. Pence treats Jared as a peer," said former Trump aide Sam Nunberg.
(The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)"
Jared the Jew Prince is the number one reason not to reelect Trump.
"... After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014, it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority. ..."
"... Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that has been raging for five years. Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead, the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support. ..."
At a time of one of the greatest political upheavals in American history that could spill
over into foreign affairs, especially U.S.-Russian relations with unpredictable and devastating
results, I thought Christmas might offer a chance for all
of us to take a pause and search for an exit from the megacrisis.
Many people believe miracles do happen at Christmastime. However, it looks like we need
President Trump , Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to perform
at least three of them.
Those who wonder why Mr. Zelensky is on this list
should recall that the Trump impeachment process started
because of his phone call with this guy whose country the Democrats and their pathetic
witnesses deem no less than vital to America's national security.
Let us start with Mr. Putin because someone has to take the first difficult step and he is
the only one in a clear position to do it.
Dear Mr. Putin, please make a public statement that Russia pledges not to interfere in the
next and future American elections. It would be good if the two chambers of the Russian
parliament, the Duma and Federation Council, ratify this pledge as well. Please do it
unilaterally without asking Mr. Trump and the U.S. Congress to
respond in kind.
Dear Mr. Trump , please return to your
earlier thinking about NATO as an obsolete organization that lost its purpose in 1991 after the
collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw military bloc. Since then, it has been searching
desperately for new missions and enemies to justify its existence.
Recall that NATO's continuous expansion drive is the major factor that squandered the
exceptional opportunity for U.S.-Russian rapprochement that all Russian leaders, starting with
Mikhail Gorbachev, kept proposing. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, and 18
other senators voted against President Clinton's first round of NATO expansion. "We'll be back
on a hair-trigger. We're talking about nuclear war," they said.
At the same time, NATO has failed to counter international terrorism -- the real threat to
European and American security. It is NATO that boosted the jihadi peril by overthrowing
Libya's government, allowing that prosperous country to morph into a terrorist playground and
staging point for millions of unvetted migrants crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.
Is NATO making America and our allies more secure? During the Cold War, when NATO allowed
the West to stand firm against Soviet communist designs on Europe, the answer was an easy yes,
but today, with NATO's reckless poking of the Russian bear, the answer is a resounding no.
A rebuilt NATO or a new organization, IATO -- International Anti-Terrorist Organization --
specifically targeting global jihad, would have a future with new partners including Russia,
for which terrorism represents a major security threat. Georgia and Ukraine could join IATO as
well, thus taking the first step toward reconciliation with Russia that NATO's insatiable
expansion drive helped destroy.
French President Emmanuel Macron is the first Western leader who agrees with this point of view
and is not afraid to say that "NATO's brain is dead." However, the U.S. president must take the
lead to move past legacy NATO.
Dear Mr. Zelensky , I believe that you
sincerely want to end the war in your country. It is not an easy job since you face a strong
and vocal radical nationalistic opposition with strong neo-Nazi overtones that declares that
any compromise on your side will be met with the violent resistance and another "Maidan
revolution" that may lead to your overthrow. The leader of this opposition is former President
Petro Poroshenko, whom Washington supported all these years and who was given a rare privilege
to speak at a joint session of Congress, where members greeted him with numerous standing
ovations. At the same time, Ukrainian people hated him so much that they decided to replace him
with a Jewish comic actor with no political experience.
Mr. Zelensky , I wonder if you
have read the book "Shooting Stars" by Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig, which describes some
important episodes in which fate gave an individual a chance at a historical turning point.
Zweig says fate usually chooses for this purpose a strong personality, but sometimes it falls
to mediocrities who fail miserably.
You are in a position to decide which you will be, and the pass to historical Olympus is
obvious.
After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014,
it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions
for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is
exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority.
Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian
population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government
called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that
has been raging for five years.
Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved
this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead,
the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support.
Mr. Zelensky , nowadays you and
your country are used as pawns in the attempts to impeach Mr. Trump , but your prime
responsibility is before Ukrainian people who dismissed the party of war and placed the fate of
your country and its people in your hands. They expect you to make the right decision by
choosing the road to peace.
While waiting for these miracles to materialize, I wish all a merry Christmas , happy Hanukkah and peace on
earth in 2020.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"... House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment. ..."
"... The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first. ..."
The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed
toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment
that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional
subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power
to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized,
both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives
will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas
requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has
argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches.
Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides
support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of
impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as
part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part
of any ongoing congressional investigations.
But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that
the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional
subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order
before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles
of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely
what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the "greatest danger" of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness,
this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include
obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end
up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at
least one of the articles of impeachment.
It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart
and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact
which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced
recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an
aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second
article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative
and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats
to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
"... But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was thinking. ..."
President Trump explicitly stated in a private conversation with one of the Democrats'
witnesses that he wanted "no quid pro quo." But the mind-reading Democrats know
Trump meant the opposite ; Trump did want a quid pro quo.
Though Ukrainian experts say a holdup of U.S. aid would not have impacted their ability to
fight the Russians, since they manufacture their own lethal weapons (and sell a lot to other
countries), the Democrats can read minds: They say people
died because of the delay.
Each of the Democrats' witnesses also drew conclusions about President Trump, his supposedly
corrupt motivations and thought processes, that would require them to read minds. (Most of them
said they'd neither met nor spoken to Trump.)
Lastly, Democrats can read Joe Biden's mind, too. They know that when Biden insisted on the
firing of the prosecutor investigating his son's company, that his son didn't factor into the
decision.
Democrats could be correct on all counts.
But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case
based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was
thinking.
"... Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies. ..."
"... The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power to print money to these corporate fascists? ..."
Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to
overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and
Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies.
The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the
Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power
to print money to these corporate fascists?
Fascist EU enablers, like the author, have called the Brits racists for years, simply
because they want out of the Nazi-arming EU. Andrew doesn't want any lessons from his
crushing defeat -- they relate to the perils of being a fanboy for corporate war-mongering
fascists.
So all other presidents who claimed privilege were actually obstructing Congress and were
subject to impeachment as will be all future presidents who claim privilege. Burisma, a
Ukrainian company, can not be investigated because a Biden is on the board. Hunter has a very
lucrative future ahead of him as an insurance against investigation.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau is a U.S. creation. It is therefore not astonishing to
find that it is corrupt.
@kooleksiy 16:29 UTC
· Dec 13, 2019
Director of Ukraine's National Anti-corruption Bureau Sytnyk will pay a ~$140 fine for
"violation of restrictions on accepting gifts" [valued at ~$1 thousand in his case] - his
lawyer stated today after Appellate Court ruling @dw_ukrainian reports
www.dw.com/uk/
"As part of your rehabilitation, it's crucial that you admit you have a problem - you are
hijacking the Intelligence Committee for political purposes while excusing and covering up
intelligence agency abuses ." -Devin Nunes to Adam Schiff
This b
recommends at his Twitter, saying "Some interesting and quite believable claims in this
thread "
Rudy Giuliani:
"Budapest | Kiev | Vienna
"After hundreds of hours & months of research, I have garnered witnesses &
documents which reveal the truth behind this impeachment, which includes NO wrongdoing by
@realDonaldTrump.
"These threads only touch the surface. Read & watch all. More to come."
The following tweet:
"Evidence revealed that corruption in 2016 was so extensive it was POTUS's DUTY to ask for
US-Ukraine investigation.
"Also, DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump."
Need to separate the partisan chaff from the genuine evidence, but IMO b's correct that
there's more than a few things here that will stick. One political cartoon in the thread
comments is beyond apt.
by Rob Urie
Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment aren't conspicuously economic issues. But they are, to
a large extent, class issues. They are inside-the-beltway dramas about foreign policy arcana
that are important to people who see their lots tied in one way or another to the established
order. This includes, by degree, those of us who would like to make room for
outside-the-beltway concerns like ending militarism, solving environmental crises, providing
meaningful employment for all who want it and creating functioning healthcare and educational
systems.
This isn't to suggest that these are equivalent concerns. And in fact, they aren't. Absent
something akin to a revolution, the worst possible outcome for the connected insiders engaged
in impeachment-tainment will be moving on to lucrative 'careers' working for private equity and
/ or investing their family fortunes in one world-ending enterprise or another. Four plus
decades into the neoliberal overthrow of 'managed' capitalism, circumstances aren't quite so
universally advantageous for the rest of us. Rising global political unrest seems destined to
bring this division to the fore.
The document argues that the American president "betrayed the Nation" by delaying "the
release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated for the
purpose of providing vital military security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian
aggression."
This is the first impeachment of a sitting president on the claim that he is a "threat to
national security." The types of extraconstitutional arguments used by the US intelligence
agencies to justify mass warrantless wiretapping, torture, "rendition," and the assassination
of an American citizen, within the framework of the "war on terror," are now being used in an
effort to remove a president.
The impeachment drive and the anti-Russia campaign that predated it have involved an
enormous intervention by the CIA and FBI in domestic politics. The impeachment inquiry was
itself triggered by a CIA agent working at the White House, while a recently-released report
shows that the FBI justified a wiretap of a former Trump aide by citing a Ukraine policy change
in the Republican Party's platform.
This process is the first time -- with the possible exception of the dark and murky
events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- that the CIA and associated
intelligence agencies have sought to remove a sitting president. Anyone who supports the
Democrats' impeachment operation, in the hope that removing Trump on these grounds can have
some sort of progressive consequence, is simply ignoring everything the Democrats and their CIA
allies have done and said.
The most extraordinary element of the impeachment proceedings was its almost complete
domination of the issue of US policy in Ukraine. It is of the greatest political significance,
not to mention strangely ironic, that the United States' instigation of the 2014 fascist-led
coup in Kiev has had far reaching consequences for political life in the US. In order to carry
through the implementation of the confrontation with Russia, which was the rationale behind the
coup, the intelligence agencies that determine the policy of the Democratic Party have been
compelled to seek the impeachment of Trump.
In 1986, the Iran-Contra scandal was triggered by the revelation that the Reagan
administration had concocted a scheme to sell arms to Iran, in order to buy weapons to finance
an illegal war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. That investigation revealed that the
Reagan administration flagrantly violated the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress to prohibit
US government assistance to the Contras.
But in this case, the main charge is that Trump held up the disbursing of money that was
allocated by Congress to promote a war that is being planned entirely behind the backs of the
American people.
The antidemocratic impulses behind the impeachment drive were summed up by the comments of
the arch-warmonger Thomas Friedman, who wrote in the New York Times yesterday,
"Generally speaking, I believe presidents should be elected and removed by the voters at the
polls. But when I hear Trump defenders scream, 'Impeachment subverts the will of the people,' I
say: "Really?"
To say that "generally speaking" the leadership of the country should be selected by voters,
is to say that this should only be the case when it suits the CIA, FBI, and the military.
Friedman's real complaint is not that Trump was subverting "the will of the people," but
that he was subverting what dominant factions of the intelligence agencies consider the
geostrategic imperatives of the American ruling class.
For all the Democrats' talk of "corruption," "obstruction of justice," "bribery," and an
"organized crime shakedown," the real reasons for the impeachment stand starkly revealed as
differences over how best to conduct the predatory policies of American imperialism.
Both the Trump presidency and the impeachment campaign of the Democrats are different
manifestations of the deep and intractable crisis of American democracy. Trump has threatened
to turn the impeachment struggle into a "civil war," implying that he could appeal to his
armed, far-right supporters to defend him against what he has called a "deep-state coup."
The Democrats' campaign against "foreign meddling" that framed the impeachment drive has
provided the framework for imposing domestic censorship measures, with the intelligence
agencies and representatives of both parties recruiting Google, Facebook and Twitter to demote
and delete left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications, pages, and groups.
But even as Trump and his Democratic opponents frantically denounce one another as traitors
and demand each other's prosecution, there has, at the same time, emerged a remarkable
bipartisan unity on fundamental issues facing US imperialism.
This was made perfectly clear this week with the rapid-fire announcement, by congressional
Democrats, of agreements on two landmark pieces of legislation: The USMCA anti-China trade deal
and the passage of the biggest military budget in US history.
The military budget, passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday,
establishes a new branch of the US armed forces, the Space Force, while levelling sanctions
against Russia, China, Turkey and North Korea.
"Wow! All of our priorities have made it into the final NDAA," Trump gloated, noting in
particular the removal of language preventing Pentagon funds being used for his immigration
crackdown. Amid soaring social inequality, all factions of the American ruling elite are
dedicated to war abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.
The political crisis in Washington is framed by the global upsurge of the class struggle and
the deepening crisis of US imperialism.
The past six months have seen an unprecedented expansion of the class struggle all over the
world. Mass protests against inequality have broken out from Chile, to Puerto Rico, to Lebanon
and Iraq. Autoworkers have gone on strike in Mexico and the United States, while much of the
Paris Metro remains shut down, amid a strike wave throughout France. A recent issue of
Time magazine, entitled "How America's Elites Lost Their Grip," notes with concern the
growing audience for socialism throughout the country.
Just as important is the series of setbacks for US imperialism's efforts, in the wake of the
dissolution of the USSR, to preserve its global hegemony through military violence.
In 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, the World Socialist Web Site noted , "Whatever the outcome of
the initial stages of the conflict that has begun, American imperialism has a rendezvous with
disaster. It cannot conquer the world. It cannot reimpose colonial shackles upon the masses of
the Middle East. It will not find through the medium of war a viable solution to its internal
maladies. Rather, the unforeseen difficulties and mounting resistance engendered by war will
intensify all of the internal contradictions of American society."
We will see... I am skeptical about idea that Brennan will be indicted.
But this article supports the idea that impeachment was a counterattack of Brannan faction of CIA and Clinton mafia against
Barr and Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Former CIA officer and counter-intelligence expert Kevin Shipp says that former Obama Administration Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder gave a big Deep State panic signal when he wrote in an Op-Ed last week in the Washington Post trashing current AG William Barr and his top prosecutor John Durham ..."
"... We have to understand it was Eric Holder that Barack Obama used to target the heads of corporations that spoke out publicly about Barack Obama. We know Holder was held in 'Contempt of Congress.' He spied on AP reporters, ran guns to drug cartels and blacked out the information. He spied on over a hundred journalists, and on and on we go... ..."
"... when Holder comes out and puts out this bombshell in the Washington Post, which is another indication that indictments are coming. John Brennan, former Obama Administration CIA Director, is going to be at the top of the list. " ..."
"... during the entire Trump Presidency, the mainstream media (MSM) has operated as a propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Democrats ..."
"... Shipp says the hoax of Russia collusion and the impeachment sham of President Trump is distracting us from other very big problems such as the extreme debt the country and the world is facing . Shipp says, ..."
Former CIA officer and counter-intelligence expert Kevin Shipp says that former Obama
Administration Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder gave a big Deep State panic signal when he
wrote in an Op-Ed last week in the Washington Post trashing current AG William Barr and his top
prosecutor John Durham. Shipp explains,
"This is very significant. We all remember that Holder was Obama's right hand man. Eric
Holder was Barack Obama's enforcer. The fact that Holder comes out this quickly after the
Inspector General (IG) Horowitz Report comes out... and makes this veiled threat against
Durham's reputation. The fact that Eric Holder came out and made this statement is a clear
indication to me they are running scared.
We have to understand it was Eric Holder that Barack Obama used to target the heads of
corporations that spoke out publicly about Barack Obama. We know Holder was held in 'Contempt
of Congress.' He spied on AP reporters, ran guns to drug cartels and blacked out the
information. He spied on over a hundred journalists, and on and on we go...
They (Deep State) are convinced there are going to be indictments. Secondly, there is AG
Barr's outrage over (IG) Horowitz's report and what it did not do. He made statements that
there was spying and actions by government officials that need to be criminally looked into.
Barr's outrage over this shows me that there are going to be indictments, and that he is
taking this seriously. Again, when Holder comes out and puts out this bombshell in the
Washington Post, which is another indication that indictments are coming. John Brennan,
former Obama Administration CIA Director, is going to be at the top of the list. "
Shipp says during the entire Trump Presidency, the mainstream media (MSM) has operated as a
propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Democrats . Shipp contends,
"They put these stories out intentionally because they are creating their own story, and
that is what the propaganda mainstream media does. It creates its own story...
They want to frame their latest story that there really wasn't any spying on Trump. That's
what FISA warrants and applications are all about. They are all about spying ."
Shipp thinks this will be a big nail in the coffin of the MSM. Shipp says, "The mainstream
media will never come back from this..."
"...because finally, through shows like this and others, the real information is coming
out as to what the mainstream media has done . At the top of that list is the New York Times,
the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC...
What they did is they created the Russia collusion story as if it was reality, as if it
was real. That is part of the procedure in doing this. Then, they invented the evidence, and
that was the Steele Dossier. They portrayed this as evidence to create this false narrative.
Then they sent this story out to each outlet, and all repeat the same story over and over and
over again knowing the more they repeat it, the more people were going to believe it. Then,
the FBI leaked information to the mainstream media. The FBI took that information leaked to
the media and used their stories as evidence. Brennan leaked the dossier to the mainstream
media as part of this whole machine."
Shipp says the hoax of Russia collusion and the impeachment sham of President Trump is
distracting us from other very big problems such as the extreme debt the country and the world
is facing . Shipp says,
"Trump inherited a financial monster that was not his doing. When he was sworn into
office, it already existed. It is very serious, and I think now or very soon the U.S.
government will not be able to afford the interest on the national debt, much less paying off
the debt itself."
It is reported that central banks are buying record amounts of gold, and even Goldman Sachs
is telling its clients to buy the yellow metal. Shipp says,
" This is a solid indicator that we are headed for the financial rapids with Goldman Sachs
especially. Goldman Sachs is a global bank, and it's one of the main banks in the United
States. The fact that Sachs and others are building up gold reserves is a clear indication
that they expect a financial downturn, to put it mildly, that is coming. "
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp.
I kinda think that everyone is holding off to see if Trump gets re-elected.
If he does then there will be indictments, jail time, and a real cleaning of the
house.
The guys in the middle of this investigation depose the "liberal" old guard and offer
sacrifices to their own "conservative" god of filth. Same Mammon, just a different order of
worship.
If he doesn't get re-elected then the guys that are investigating this can just slink back
into the current slime and survive in some basic way.
I have seen this dynamic when companies merge as equals. Everybody is afraid to act
because the stakes are so high. It's a chess game played by ruthless cowards.
This article is so much weaker then his testimony that it is a great disappointment. May be threats has had a shilling effects.
This is a Kabuki theater. Both sides are afraid to talk about the real issues such as CIA/FBI intrusion in 2016 elections and the
coup d'état to depose Trump after it. As well as Trump support of Yemen war, Douma false flag operation, the role of Obama
administration in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Skripals poisoning false flag operation, etc
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these claims, it is worth closer scrutiny. ..."
"... he flopped on his face when he said " It certainly was not akin to the Russian hacking operation in 2016." ..."
"... WHAT Russian hacking operation, fella? Technology has already proven the "hacking" was a download to a thumb-drive done MANUALLY. ..."
"... Here is another article that says "the Russians hacked". If they use this lie enough than it will become fact. ..."
"... Turley asks, but doesn't answer. The obvious answer, is they don't have any good reason or case to impeach Trump, and they just disagree with him politically. As Turley says, the case will be "summarily rejected". There are many elections in the coming months, though mostly at the state level: https://election-calendar.com/ ..."
"... Turley thinks there is a case if the Dems just spend more time developing it? I think this guy is just trying to get out from under all the hate mail for himself he generated telling the truth at the impeachment tribunal. ..."
"... Turley dishonors himself trying to look now more in the impeachment camp when he told the truth in the first place...at the Hearing....It is obvious now he is trying to save his job at a left wing school....maybe he needs to find some independent or moderate school to teach at for he is now showing a yellow streak down his back. ..."
"... If Washington DC were NOT a den of crooks, it shouldn't need a newspaper like The Washington Post to paint everything pearly white. ..."
"... The crookedness is proportional to the count of starched collars ..."
The House Judiciary Committee is about to approve two articles of impeachment as member after member last night declared that
time is of the essence. The House is now set to fulfill its pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. For some us, the
mad rush toward impeachment by the Democrats has been utterly incomprehensible. It is difficult enough to go to the Senate in a presidential
impeachment without an accepted crime and on the narrowest basis in history. However, the Democrats know that they have combined
those liabilities with the thinnest record of any modern impeachment – a record filled with gaps and conflicts. The Democrats know
that this record is guaranteed to fail and could easily justify the Senate holding a trial as cursory as its hearings.
Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House
Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these
claims, it is worth closer scrutiny.
So why? The answer to that question will likely occupy historians for decades after this slipshod impeachment is summarily rejected.
In the impeachment hearing, I testified that President Donald Trump could be impeached for abuse of power but that the record was
facially inadequate and incomplete. I encouraged the Committee to just take a few more months to subpoena roughly ten witnesses with
direct evidence and secure judicial orders that I believe would support the Committee on its obstruction article. While I was relieved
to see the Committee drop the allegations of bribery, extortion, and other crimes that I testified against, it refused to simply
take a little more time to develop a more complete case.
None of the excuses for the pledge to impeach by Christmas are even remotely plausible. They can be divided into two basic groupings:
court challenges would take too much time and there is a crime in progress that must be stopped.
No Time To Wait
First, there is the argument by Chairman Schiff in response to the criticism over the short investigation (which even the New
York Times has challenged). Schiff insisted that waiting will mean a guarantee of that there will be no impeachment while also guaranteeing
that there will be foreign meddling in the 2020 election: "People should understand what that argument really means. It has taken
us eight months to get a lower court ruling that Don McGahn has no absolute right to defy Congress. Eight months for one court decision."
As has consistently been the case, no major media outfit seemed interested to fact check that statement. It happens to be untrue.
The House waited until August 7th to go to court to compel McGahn's appearance. That was roughly four months ago, not eight. It
was also filed before the House voted to start the impeachment inquiry on October 31st. Back in January, I testified in the House
Judiciary Committee and pushed the Committee to hold such a vote to allow for expedited cases over testimony like McGahn's. At the
time, I warned that the House was running out of runway to get an impeachment off the ground. With such a vote, these cases could
have moved at the accelerated pace of an impeachment.
The question is why would the House not only refuse to try to secure these witnesses but actually withdraw a subpoena before
a ruling in the Kupperman.
Turley asks, but doesn't answer. The obvious answer, is they don't have any good reason or case to impeach Trump, and they
just disagree with him politically. As Turley says, the case will be "summarily rejected". There are many elections in the coming
months, though mostly at the state level: https://election-calendar.com/
Half the Dems want impeachment to get the TDS vote from their gerrymandered heavily Democrat districts. They've gerrymandered
their districts into ones that do not represent the majority of the country, and it's going to bite them as the few socialists
that get elected, will get nothing done, and swing districts will swing to the GOP giving them a House majority, and GOP control
of all branches. They got rid of more competitive districts, so they don't have to serve conservatives, and they won't regardless
if they win or lose. They've manufactured their own demise.
At least Trump reaches out to liberals, while liberals denigrate and show their hate for conservatives, as their reps like
Mad Maxine call for more hate.
Turley thinks there is a case if the Dems just spend more time developing it? I think this guy is just trying to get out
from under all the hate mail for himself he generated telling the truth at the impeachment tribunal.
Funny you are saying that, I thought the same thing. Screw him, you either have honor all the time or not at all. Some of the
clowns think it is like being funny, sometimes you are not at all.
Turley dishonors himself trying to look now more in the impeachment camp when he told the truth in the first place...at
the Hearing....It is obvious now he is trying to save his job at a left wing school....maybe he needs to find some independent
or moderate school to teach at for he is now showing a yellow streak down his back.
NYT fails to state that the most plausible scenario was that CIA send Page to join Trump
campaign, then to establish contacts with Russians and after that obtain FICA warrants in a
typical false flag operation manner. Essentially Trump campaign was entrapped.
First, when agents initially sought permission for the wiretap, F.B.I. officials scoured
information from confidential informants and selectively presented portions that supported
their suspicions that Mr. Page might be a conduit between Russia and the Trump campaign's
onetime chairman, Paul Manafort.
But officials did not disclose information that undercut that allegation -- such as the fact
that Mr. Page had told an informant in August 2016 that he "never met" or "said one word" to
Mr. Manafort, who had never returned Mr. Page's emails. Even if the investigators did not
necessarily believe Mr. Page, the court should have been told what he had said.
Second, as the initial court order was nearing its expiration and law-enforcement officials
prepared to ask the surveillance court to renew it, the F.B.I. had uncovered information that
cast doubt on some of its original assertions. But law enforcement officials never reported
that new information to the court.
Specifically, the application included allegations about Mr. Page contained in a dossier
compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent whose research was funded
by Democrats. In January 2017, the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Steele's own primary source, and he
contradicted what Mr. Steele had written in the dossier.
The source for Mr. Steele may, of course, have been lying. But either way, officials should
have flagged the disconnect for the court. Instead, the F.B.I. reported that its agents had met
with the source to "further corroborate" the dossier and found him to be "truthful and
cooperative," leaving a misleading impression in renewal applications.
Finally, the report stressed Mr. Page's long history of meeting with Russian intelligence
officials. But he had also said that he had a relationship with the C.I.A., and it turns out
that he had for years told the agency about those meetings -- including one that was cited in
the wiretap application as a reason to be suspicious of him.
That relationship could have mitigated some suspicions about his history. But the F.B.I.
never got to the bottom of it, and the court filings said nothing about Mr. Page's dealings
with the C.I.A.
The inspector general's report contains many more examples of errors and omissions. Mr.
Horowitz largely blamed lower-level F.B.I. agents charged with preparing the evidence, but he
also faulted high-level supervisors for permitting a culture in which the inaccuracies took
place.
The recent shootings of three U.S. soldiers in Florida at the hands of a Saudi citizen raises a standard question in the U.S.
government's perpetual "war on terrorism": "Why do they hate us?"
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the official mantra began being issued: The terrorists just hate us for our "freedom and values."
No other explanation for motive was to be considered. If anyone suggested an alternative motive -- such as "They are retaliating
for U.S. governmental killings over there" -- U.S. officials and interventionists would immediately go on the attack, heaping a mountain
of calumny on that person, accusing him of treason, hating America, loving the terrorists, and justifying their attacks.
It happened to me and other libertarians who dared to challenge the official motive behind the 9/11 attacks. Shortly after the
attacks, I spoke at a freedom conference in Arizona consisting of both libertarians and conservatives. When I pointed out that the
attacks were the predictable consequence of a foreign policy that kills people over there, another of the speakers was filled with
anger and rage over such an "unpatriotic" suggestion. Then, a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, FFF published an article by me entitled,
" Is This the Wrong Time
to Question Foreign Policy? " in which I pointed out the role that U.S. interventionism had played in the attacks. FFF was hit
with the most nasty and angry attacks I have ever seen.
Eighteen years later, the evidence is virtually conclusive that the reason that the United States has been suffering a constant,
never-ending threat of terrorism is because U.S. military and CIA forces have been killing people in the Middle East and Afghanistan
since at least the end of the Cold War, and even before.
After all, if the terrorists hate us for our "freedom and values," why haven't they been attacking the Swiss? They have pretty
much the same freedom and values that Americans have. And they are much closer geographically to Middle East terrorists than the
United States is. Why haven't the terrorists been attacking them?
The answer is simple: the Swiss government, unlike the U.S. government, hasn't been killing, maiming, and injuring people and
hasn't been bombing and destroying countries in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
A long history of U.S. interventionism
U.S. interventions in the Middle East began, of course, long before the 9/11 attacks. There was the 1953 CIA coup that destroyed
Iran's experiment with democracy with a coup that replaced the democratically elected prime minister of the country with a tyrannical
pro-U.S. dictator. Not surprisingly, that produced the violent Iranian revolution almost 25 years later. The Iranian revolutionaries
didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America for the U.S. government's installation, training, and support
of the tyrannical regime against which they revolted.
In the 1980s, there was the sending of U.S. troops into Lebanon as interventionist "peacekeepers." The terrorists ended up blowing
up a Marine barracks, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. The terrorists didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America
for the federal government's interventionism into Lebanon. As soon as all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Lebanon, which was the
right thing to do, there were obviously no more deaths of U.S. soldiers in that country.
It was after the Pentagon and the CIA lost their official Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia), that they proceeded
headlong into the Middle East and began killing multitudes of people. There was the Persian Gulf War, waged without the constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war, where thousands of Iraqis were killed or injured. That was followed by a decade of brutal
sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
Thus, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a bomb in 1993, appeared before
a federal judge for sentencing, he angrily told the judge that it was U.S. officials who were the butchers, for killing multitudes
of innocent children in Iraq.
As those Iraqi children were dying, there were retaliatory terrorist strikes on the USS Cole and the U.S. embassies in East Africa.
Once again, however, U.S. officials continued to steadfastly maintain that was all about hatred for America's "freedom and values"
and had nothing to do with the deadly and destructive U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.
Then came Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States, in which he expressly cited U.S. interventionism in
the Middle East as his motivating factor. That was followed by the 9/11 attacks, along with other terrorist attacks both here and
abroad. Through it all, U.S. officials and interventionists have blindly maintained that the terrorists hate us for our "freedom
and values," not because the U.S. government kills, maims, injures, and destroys people over there.
The recent Florida killings
And now we have the latest killing spree, this one at the hands of a Saudi citizen in Florida. According to
a story in yesterday's Washington Post about the killing of three U.S. soldiers, the killer, Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani
was described as "strange" and "angry." "He looked like he was angry at the world," said one person who knew him. Another said that
he looked at people in an "angry, challenging" way.
The article says that "the FBI has not yet determined a motive for the mass shooting."
Well, of course it hasn't. That's undoubtedly because the FBI hasn't yet found any statements in which the killer states that
he hates America for its "freedom and values."
But the Post article does point out something quite interesting. The article states: "The gunman, who was shot dead by
a sheriff's deputy responding to the shooting, is thought to have written a 'will' that was posted to the account a few hours before
the rampage. In it, he blasts U.S. policies in Muslim countries."
Well, isn't that interesting! Unfortunately, the Post didn't provide a verbatim transcript of the killer's "will" in which
he "blasts U.S. policies in the Muslim countries." The Post does point out though that "the writer says he does not dislike
Americans per se -- 'I don't hate you because of your freedoms,' he begins -- but that he hates U.S. policies that he views as anti-Muslim
and 'evil.'"
I n an article at antiwar.com entitled, " Pensacola: Blowback Terrorism ," Scott Horton provides a verbatim transcript of the
killer's "will," in which the killer states in part:
I'm not against you for just being American, I don't hate you for your freedom, I hate you because every day you supporting,
funding, and committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity. I am against evil, and America as a whole has turned
into a nation of evil. What I see from America is the supporting of Israel which is invasion of Muslim countrie, I see invasion
of many countries by it's troops, I see Guantanamo Bay. I see cruise missiles, cluster bombs and UAV.
Now, if one goes back to Ramzi Yousef's sentencing hearing in 1995 -- some 24 years ago -- one will see that Yousef angrily said
much the same thing to the federal judge who was getting ready to sentence him to jail for his 1993 terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center.
Americans have a choice:
One, continue the U.S. government's decades-long killing spree in the Middle East, in which case America will continue to experience
never-ending terrorist retaliation, the perpetual "war on terrorism, and the ongoing destruction of our liberty and privacy at the
hands of our government, which is purportedly protecting us from the terrorist threats that it produces with its foreign interventionism.
Or, two, stop U.S. forces from killing any more people, bring them all home and discharge them, which would help get America back
on the right track, one toward liberty, peace, prosperity, morality, normality, and harmony with the world.
This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received
his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for
twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987,
Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced
freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren
shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these interviews at
LewRockwell.com and from
Full Context
. Send him email .
The Hill reports that a man in Illinois has been charged after allegedly threatening to
shoot Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and accusing the congressman of "backing the Russians."
Rodney Lee Davis
64-year-old Randall Tar of Rochester, Ill. was charged with communicating threats to injure
a person and threatening to assault, kidnap or murder a federal official, according to court
documents released this week (full release below).
Contacted at his home Thursday, Tarr said he saw a television ad in which Davis, a
Republican from Taylorville, claimed that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for meddling in
the 2016 U.S. elections , and it angered him enough to call.
Prosecutors say Tarr called Davis's district office last month and left a profanity-filled
voicemail, saying:
"I just saw you ... on the TV. You backing the Russians, boy?"
"Stupid son of a bitch, you're gonna go against our military and back the Russians?" he
allegedly added.
"I'm a sharpshooter. ... I'd like to shoot your f---ing head off you stupid
motherf---er."
The bigger story is the number of mentally unstable Americans. When you go driving next,
remember that about 20% of them are gorked on prescribed medications. The behavior you will
observe makes complete sense in that context.
It's surprisingly easy to get bogged down in the nonsense of the moment when this is what's
actually happening: the impeachment of the president, and a struggle over the power of the
presidency and of the Congress, over the integrity of elections in the United States, and over
the Constitution and the republic.
We're almost certainly heading for a party-line vote in the House with only a handful of
defections, and there's every reason to believe the Senate trial will yield similar results.
But there are some unanswered questions that could prove quite important in the long
term.
Will Trump, and will future presidents, be more restrained because even impeachment and
acquittal is still a sufficient punishment? Or will it backfire? Will Trump believe, if he is
not removed, that pressuring a foreign nation to help his re-election bid and then stiff-arming
Congress when they investigate it now has a seal of approval? We don't know. Nor do we really
know how the specifics of the Senate trial -- whether witnesses are called, what the final vote
is -- will matter.
Judge Marcus Alfonso Paralapalos of the conservative 51st District Court of Warrants, has
ordered the medical treatment files for Nancy Pelosi's alcoholism unsealed and available to the
general public. While technically a violation of about 11 laws, Judge Paralopolos stands by his
ruling, fully expecting it to be overturned:
"The public has a right to know if the Speaker of the House is undergoing treatment for
alcoholism and bloogie addiction. The 9th Circuit Court will certainly overrule this, but I
cannot in good conscience deny the motion to the plaintiff."
The plaintiff, Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the people of the United States, will now have to
find a way to convince a panel of liberals that it's in the country's best interests to see the
private treatment notes of one of our most powerful elected officials.
Let's face it. Even Trump had his doctor weigh in on his mental and physical well-being,
calling him the healthiest 78-year-old of all time. It's not like they're asking for her tax
returns. Nancy Pelosi should have to be seen and certified by a mental health professional. She
sits way too close to power not to.
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
Notable quotes:
"... Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal threshold for impeachment. ..."
"... Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what was in the President's mind. ..."
"... What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment. ..."
"... After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW. " ..."
"... For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ? ..."
"... Did any of those 31 notice when the Constitutional law experts were asked by Rep. Matt Gaetz " Can you identify one single material fact in the Schiff Report? – all four remained silent. ..."
"... As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity, the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House seats in 2020? ..."
"... You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum." ..."
"... It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties ..."
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House
Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday
entitled " Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment ." The Report came the day after
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference
in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.
As has become apparent to any objective observer; that is one who prefers facts over
fiction, the Democrats remain locked in an imaginary world struggling to maintain relevance, a
stature of standing that no longer exists.
Presumably with no Quid Pro Quo, no allegation of criminal conduct, no legally substantial
evidence or factual basis and no bipartisan support, in defiance of previous impeachment norms,
the Democrats are hell bent on making public jackasses out of themselves.
In a hearing with
Constitutional legal experts expected to score big legal points in support of impeachment,
the witnesses instead turned out to be smug, hyper partisan activists as they were consistently
unpersuasive and unimpressive .
All three displayed not a wit of objectivity or neutrality while touting their own personal
political agenda with a foreign policy ax to grind, leaving the unmistakable impression that
their testimonies were nothing short of conflated.
Condescending as if pontificating to a class of mediocre law students,
Professor Noah Feldman had suggested in 2017 that Presidential tweets could be grounds for
impeachment, indicative of the depth of his thinking as he repeatedly impressed himself with
his own rhetoric.
Professor Pamela Karlan opened with a shrillness that grew into a hyperbole spewing
divisiveness among the American people and went on to revisit the Russiagate and foreign
electoral influence myth ad nauseam. Those dim witted Democrats on the committee repeated the
mantra as if held in a spellbound trance whenever "Russiagate" was mentioned. There was no
mention of Israel interference in US elections. Testimony of
Professor Michael Gerhardt .
Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P
rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a
brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony
throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal
threshold for impeachment.
Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed
Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own
re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what
was in the President's mind.
However, it did not appear that any of the Democrats had the acute sensibility to understand
Turley's point as there is an edge of lunacy to the collective Democratic mind these days.
What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes
decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit
electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment.
After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I
finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and
demands that I be fired from GW. "
While it was surprising that there was no Democratic Star on either the Intel or Judiciary
Committees who stepped forward to make a credible, cogent case for impeachment, it was somewhat
surprising that the Republicans had an energetic array of participating Members not limited to
Intel ranking member Devin Nunes (Calif), Judiciary ranking minority Rep. Doug Collins (NC),
Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh), Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) and Rep. Mark Gaetz (R-Fla) all of whom can
be expected to continue their Bulldog approach as the Committee begins preparing Articles of
Impeachment.
For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of
the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient,
unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not
considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been
made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does
anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to
knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ?
At her news conference the day after the Judiciary committee hearing, Pelosi was asked by a
reporter " Do you
hate President Trump ?" Pelosi responded with a shaky false piety as if she knows the votes
are not there:
We don't hate anybody. Not anybody in the World. And as a Catholic, I resent your using
the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me. I don't hate anyone. I was raised in a way
that is full – a heart full of love and always pray for the president, And I still pray
for the president. I pray for the president all the time, So don't mess with me when it comes
to words like that.
It is a curiosity that with the 2020 election a scant twelve months away, the Democrats have
not made the case for the urgency of why impeachment needs to occur right now, immediately,
before the Christmas holidays when the Spirit of Good Cheer, Universal Love and Peace for all
Americans should take precedence over the Democrat's divisive animosity, pitting one American
against another.
In 2018, thirty-one new Democrats were elected to the House; predominately from districts
that voted for Trump in 2016 assuring a tough 2020 re-election campaign.
Let's assume that every one of those 31 newbies have been paying very close attention to the
Intel and Judiciary committee hearings with two questions in mind:
Is there sufficient legal evidence to convince my constituents to support Articles of
Impeachment and is this flawed impeachment campaign worth losing my seat in Congress?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-0SC) has already indicated that he does
not intend to 'whip" the Dems in preparation for an Impeachment vote on the House floor and
that the Dems "expect to lose some votes."
Let's do the math: With 233 Dems and 197 Republicans, if 18 of the 31 House newbies do not
vote to impeach, the Democratic Motion to approve Articles of Impeachment will fail with a tie
of 215 votes. Whether the Dems lose 18 votes or less, the damage will be irreversible.
As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity,
the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House
seats in 2020?
Seamus Padraig ,
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
All I can say is, you have to really dig all the way to the bottom of the tinfoil-cooler
to find an explanation for this one. Others it makes no sense whatsoever.
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
George Cornell ,
So your argument consists essentially of name-calling to exercise your own demons. You make
Trump look good, like the other stark raving lunatics opining on this , many in the
Democratic Party. You have zero chance of unseating Trump by impeachment and by the looks of
things that might not be such a bad thing, he said, making the sign of the cross and mouthing
pagan incantations, begging forgiveness from the ether.
You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted
to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum."
Rhys Jaggar ,
Would Ms Parsons like to write an OpEd on the US Senate pushing forward false narratives that
Russia is 'a promoter of terrorism'?
The biggest promoter of terrorism workdwide since 1945 is the USA, be it through OSS, CIA,
or other outsourced channels of coup-promoting violence .
Is it not time a motion were voted upon in the UN on precisely that postulate?
wardropper ,
Unfortunately, as you know, the UN, like NATO, to all intents and purposes actually IS the
USA, and vetoes all criticism of itself. And if vetoing doesn't work, it just ignores the
criticism. Other recent farces at the UN show the US and Israel sitting alone while the rest
of the world condems them, and the condemnation is simply shrugged off.
Astonishing that educated adults put up with it, but there it is.
Rhys Jaggar ,
It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party
stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or
metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
The impeachment . The two articles of impeachment are so anemic as to invite ridicule.
1. "Abuse of power" by expressing concern over thievery by Ukrainians and Americans? This is
a charge? The Washington Post has been running a series of articles based on "leaked" US Afghan IG reports and interviews with people involved in that wretched place. These articles reveal
the massive scale of the thievery that lost America enormous amounts of money taken through
graft and bribery. Was it unreasonable for this president to solicit the Ukrainian president's
cooperation in trying to deal with a similar situation in that country. He mentioned Uncle Joe
Biden and his drug addled son? Well, why not? The younger of the two has IMO been used as the
family bag man for collecting protection money. Joe Biden himself looks to me to be a political
version of Jimmy Hoffa the mobbed up Teamsters boss of long ago, but, with less charm, "a
little for you, a lot for me," etc. He was potentially a rival for the 2020 election? He was
not then a candidate. Is every human or semi-human to be exempt from investigation and
prosecution because he MIGHT become a political rival? The Democrats know full well this would
be absurd.
2. "Obstructing congress" What we are seeing in the behavior of the Democratic majority in
the House and minority in the senate is an attempt to seize control of the federal government
using the constitutional powers to "advise and consent" on appointments and the ability to
impeach in the House.. They have not yet tried to impeach federal judges appointed by the other
party but IMO they will try that soon. In this article of impeachment they claim that the
president has obstructed their function by relying on the doctrine of Executive Privilege to
deny them access to his present and past staff. Trump did not invent this doctrine. It is a
well established feature of American law. Without it no president could conduct internal policy
discussions or confidential discussions with foreign leaders. The Democrats know full well that
the principal of Executive Privilege is often contested in the courts. That is what they should
have done this time, but instead they have chosen to charge the president for impeachment for
claiming Executive Privilege. They do not claim this is a violation of law. They merely stamp
their feet and scream that they are unhappy and want him gone.
This farce will end in a trial in the US Senate with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.
The Republicans control the senate and will not allow Trump to be deposed. The senate can
dismiss the charges by a simple majority vote and that is what Senator Lindsey Graham wants to
see happen. Trump does not want that. He wants to be tried for the purpose of turning the
tables on the Democrats.
I think he is correct in wanting that. If that occurs, witnesses must be subpoenaed and
examined in open court. The Bidens must be so called to demonstrate the reasonable nature of
Trump's concern over their behavior in Ukraine . pl
Just wondering. Suppose the Senate dismisses the Impeachment. Won't the Chief Justice have to
rule on the question of whether or not there is at least probable cause for the democrats'
determination that this is probable cause to Impeach?
Chief Justice could rule on a demurrer which would dismiss the case without a trial - failure
to present prima facie elements of the underlying charge. Therefore nothing of fact is
triable - case dismissed.
Which is probably why Democrats ditched the more specific treason, bribery and extortion
charges, leaving only the garbage can of "abuse of power" and "obstruction" behind. By what
standards of evidence are both those remaining elements - abuse of power and obstruction --
even tried, let alone judged?
Biden on camera bragging about a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor examining corruption at
a company where Biden's son is on the board taking a fat paycheck with no experience or
expertise to have that position.
I agree that Trump should get his wish. He has endured a lot of false "reporting." And those
untruths need to be shown for what they are. I wonder if Mitch McConnell would be able to
arrange that despite Graham.
I know that Trump's personality attracts that sort of shocked response from some people.
Heck, I'm a Republican and was first also opposed to Trump because of his personality. But
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats and their fawning media characters have earned a lot of
the same sort negative responses and disgust on the part of the people because their
personalities are pretty off-putting also.
I'm still suffering from cognitive dissonance because Adam Schiff has somehow actually
remained in his elected position. I can't imagine a high school principal allowing someone
who does "parody" to continue as a student council candidate.
I do believe that Nancy Pelosi may be really sinking into dementia or alcoholism--just
on the basis of her inability to control her dentures. To have those two criticize the
character of Trump really seems strange. I feel that I'm watching a Dickens novel performed
on national news each day. I can't laugh, though, because this is happening in
reality.
Given the corruption on both sides of the Senate it is probable that no-one wants an in depth
trial during which unwanted facts might accidentally appear. Much better to whisk it through
without it touching the sides so to speak.
OK so Trump doesn't get the exoneration he wants but then nothing will explode in his
face. Its not a win win but then its not a lose either and it is unlikely to seriously affect
his chances next November. Plus as a quid pro quo he might have got his defence spending
increase and the trade bill through.
I'm trying to remember the site I read it on, maybe south front, where the point was made the
graft flows through these governments we give billions to, back through the various
institutes and global initiatives the US politicians set up. McCain and Clinton being the two
mentioned. So neither side wants it looked into too deeply.
A conversation between two heads of state is not and should not be conducted as though the
subject matter of the conversation is subject to the rules and assumptions of a court of
justice.
Graham has a vested interest in not having an extensive trial with many witnesses as it
may uncover his own culpability in the Ukraine corruption. And of course may drag in Saint
McCain too!
His and Mitch's argument to Trump likely would be, that with no trial they can guarantee
acquittal but with a trial they can't.
An article in the Duran indicates that and why Senate Republicans may buck Trump's wishes, as
they are as deep in Ukraine corruption as any of the Dems are. Lindsay, the late John M and
Sleep Joe are perhaps the most deeply planted ...
You mean that with the same investigative power the Obama administration had he has none
of the alleged evidence on senators you allude to? What a wonderful implication from a Cyprus
based media outlet founded in 2016 and run by the host of an RT political show. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-duran/
As of today Trump's approval rating is 43.9% and Congress's approval rating is 24%. I gather
that the House Democrats don't realize how unpopular they are and how many Americans support
"obstruction of Congress". Are they trying to turn Trump into a national hero?
In the legitimate focus on the impeachment, a stunning revelation in the Horowitz report has
been largely overlooked. In January 2017, the FBI conducted three interviews with the key
source to Christopher Steele for his dossier. He told interviewed on all three occasions that
the material he passed on to Steele was gossip and second and third-hand rumors with no
proof. He even said that the sexual allegations were actually a joke and he never meant for
them to be taken serious. The FBI in seeking the follow-on FISA warrant merely reported they
interviewed Steele's source and he was "cooperative and candid." No content reported.
In addition, Horowitz found email exchanges between FBI and CIA, in which the FBI inquired
if Carter Page was a CIA source. Three times the CIA responded "yes." But the FBI agent
preparing the affidavit for the FISA renewal lied and wrote "no" to the question of Page's
CIA work. That was the false statement Horowitz referred to.
These are serious crimes by FBI officials and they should not go unnoted in the MSM or
left to be ignored. I hope that Durham is carefully reading every word of the Horowitz report
for points of criminal misconduct to present to his Federal grand jury.
You can't fully discuss impeachment of Trump without going back to the first cause, and in
this case it was clearly criminal misconduct by Federal law enforcement.
that a bipartisan agreement exists that the Democrats can introduce the impeachment but
the majority Republicans will vote it out without trial.
An approach which seems plausible. But after nigh on four full years of a campaign against
initially a candidate and for the majority of the time the holder of the presidential office
involving lurid allegations might not a trial be helpful in restoring some public confidence
in the body politic? And in reducing the levels of vitriol.
Earlier today a person asked me what was going to happen in the impeachment trial, and I said
that the senate will decide that after the case gets to them. The rules of procedure and
rules of evidence (if any!) will be determined by the senate.
The U.S. Constitution says in Article 1, section 3 that--
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is
tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no Person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit, under the
United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law".
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Repub. Kentucky) appeared on the Sean
Hannity television show on FoxNews and said in essence that how a trial will proceed is up in
the air, as he explains at the 1 minute mark until 2 minutes and 17 seconds into the
video--
McConnell, as usual, carefully maintains his position, and says that everything he does
about an impeachment trial, "I am coordinating with White House counsel". And, "There will be
no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to
the extent that we can".
What McConnell is obviously doing is protecting himself no matter what the political
effect of the content of the trial may be.
He says: "We all know how it's going to end. There is no chance the president is going to
be removed from office".
It is worse than that. Groups of current or former high level employees band together to
bid on large scale development contracts. They have local partners and the loot is
tremendous.
"... While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay home. ..."
"... Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno. ..."
They want to do it by Christmas in the vain hope that this circus will all blow over by
November. I think not.
While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks
the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay
home.
Part of me, however, thinks back to something that Harry Truman said, "in politics there
are no accidents" .
Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword
and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno.
The Republicans will have both houses when in 2024 the the tax take will barley cover
interest.
designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4?
Dunno.
Been thinking along the same lines. May be the last thing they want is to be "on line" in
2021. I even wonder if CNN and BSNBC, etc, are there to DRIVE the decent Democrat to the
Republicians.
No reputable legal authority would fear ensuring due process for an accused, unless it had no evidence of an actual crime
to justify prosecution...but DID have ulterior motives and nefarious purposes for doing so.
Let's be clear.
To date, not a single shred of actual evidence has ever been produced to prove Russian involvement or interference in the
2016 presidential election.
***.
Nada.
We have the opinion of domestic intelligence agencies, but we have no physical or direct evidence.
On the contrary, we have as much reason to believe some or all of them interfered in the Trump campaign, to orchestrate
and execute a foreign interference hoax against Trump, before and after his election.
Daily, and throughout this sick prog left congressional abuse of power, we have repeatedly heard claims of an "ongoing
war with Russia" in Ukraine.
Which war is this? Is this a continuation of the non-invasion of the Donbas in 2014? The specious and false claims of Russian troop concentrations, and tanks rolling, that even spy satellites didn't see? Are we still lying about this? If so, where are the media reports of Russian airstrikes, burning Ukrainian villages, or body bags?
In any "on-going" war with Russia, we would've been treated to near-constant news video of Russian armor all over eastern Ukraine. Have we? Perhaps this war they keep telling us about is like the Russian "invasion" of Crimea that didn't happen either.
We clearly remember the two Crimean-initiated referenda which put them back in their ancestral Russian
homelands, but none of that had anything to do with invading Russians, who already had a substantial military
presence in Crimea for decades.
No sir, Professor Turley.
There is no basis whatsoever for Trump's impeachment.
There is mounting evidence of a continued coup against this president, and the substantial number of Americans
who actually elected him.
We too are closely monitoring the actual situation...
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
It would be amusing to watch. However, the end result is a lose-lose for The United States
no matter who wins.
Crook(D) v Crook(R) is the perception – much as it is with impeachment with Pelosi
playing the part of Biden – with Trump standing a good chance to win. As of right now,
the 2020 election is Democrats to lose. They are doing a great job of that so far and it is
not even 2020.
Centrist Democrats will be trying to court the same voters – suburban center-right
Republicans – that Trump will be angling to get. Should it be Biden that wins the
nomination.
If Sanders somehow is nominated and Trump refuses to engage in debats? Run a "Trump Tucks
Tail and Runs" campaign with a massive highlight of his policy failures. Trump excels in the
arena of personal attacks. Biden would lose. Sanders could keep it clean and focused on
policy, dropping nuke after nuke on Trump. With Biden? Given how Centrist Democrats and
Republicans are both guilty of cooperating on issues such as Syria, Libya, Wall Street,
torture, Iraq, etc?
Centrist Democrats have no powder or if they do? Their powder is all wet. It was amazing
the number of policy attacks and opportunities that Centrist Democrats had to use against
Trump in 2016 yet were too afraid to. Opting for personal attacks. I still remember that
ambush by Andersen Cooper and Hillary Clinton against Trump at the 2nd(?) debate discussing
the allegations against Trump regarding rape, etc.
Never mind that Hillary Clinton had Bill with his prior allegations of sexual abuse. That
was the lamest ambush I've ever seen. You could practically see Hillary Clinton's vein pop
out on her forehead when Trump responded. I thought she was going to have a stroke. That
ambush wasted approximately 25 minutes of debate time and achieved less than nothing.
As we've seen with the latest funding bill? Centrist Democrats gave Trump what he wanted.
So, what do Centrist Democrats have to run on?
In a rare interview on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday night, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed certainty that President Donald Trump would stay in office
despite the fact that there has yet to be a vote on
impeachment .
"There's no chance the President's going to be removed from office," McConnell told
Hannity.
Further, McConnell said he expects all Republicans and even some Democrats to vote against
impeachment.
"This is a thoroughly political exercise. It's not like a courtroom experience, It's a
political exercise. They've been trying to do this for three years. They've finally screwed up
their courage to do it," McConnell said.
He continued,
" It looks to me like it may be backfiring on them particularly in swing districts that
the Speaker's party managed to win in order to get the majority. Most of the nervousness I
see on this issue with politicians since it's a political process is on the Democratic
side."
When the Impeachment gets finally voted on in the Senate, what will Sanders do? He will do
best by being true to his own self, regardless of what votes he loses whichever way he
votes.
But I hope that being true to himself involves voting NOT to remove. Because depending on
how bitter the Democratic Convention is, a Nominee Sanders may get few or zero Clintonite
Democratic votes by definition, regardless of what he does. Whereas if he votes TO remove, he
will lose any votes, or even respectful hearing, that he might have had otherwise among the
deplorables.
"... no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing it to overthrow the president. ..."
"... The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security state. ..."
"... All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy. ..."
"... Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is rather a rogue CIA agent ..."
"... his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate ..."
"... It could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of. What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who supervised him, and who exactly were his associates? ..."
"... And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the “whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath. He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with losing his license to practice law. ..."
"... Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman ..."
Hillary Clinton sure got her money's worth with the Fusion GPS deal : it induced a
three-year psychotic break in the body politic, destroyed the legitimacy of federal law
enforcement, turned a once-proud, free, and rational press into an infernal engine of bad
faith, and is finally leading her Democratic Party to an ignominious suicide . And the damage
is far from complete. It's even possible that Mrs. Clinton will return to personally escort the
party over the cliff when, as is rumored lately, she jumps into the primary contest and
snatches the gonfalon of leadership from the ailing old man of the sclerotic status quo, Uncle
Joe Biden.
The citizens of this foundering polity have been subjected to a stunning doubleheader of
political spectacle clear through the week.
On Monday, the Horowitz Report was briefly celebrated by the Left for claiming "no bias" and
a "reasonable predicate" for the RussiaGate mess - until auditors actually got to read the
400-plus-page document and discovered that it was absolutely stuffed with incriminating details
that Mr. Horowitz was too polite, too coy, or too faint-hearted to identify as acts worthy of
referral for prosecution.
Mr. Barr, the attorney general, and US attorney John Durham immediately stepped up to set
the record straight, namely, that this was hardly the end of the matter and that they were
privy to fact-trains of evidence that would lead, by-and-by, to a quite different conclusion.
This reality-test was greeted, of course, with shrieking for their dismissal from the Jacobin
Left. But then at mid-week, Mr. Horowitz put in a personal appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee and left no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion
GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing
it to overthrow the president.
The shock-waves from all that still pulsate through the disordered collective consciousness
of this sore-beset republic, and will disturb the sleep of many former and current officials
for months to come as the specter of Barr & Durham transmutes into a nightmare of Hammer
& Tongs, perp-walks, and actual prosecutions. The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems
not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York
Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security
state. Their obdurate mendacity can no longer be attributed to a simple quest for clicks and
eyeballs. It speaks to a sickness of mind that has infected the whole thinking class of America
as it succumbed to the ultimate smashing of boundaries: the one between what is real and what
is not real (or what is true and what is not true.)
All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment
show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and
prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I
write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious
articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case
with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it
commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even
members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about
staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy.
For one thing the procedure would ascertain finally that Mr. Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is
rather a rogue CIA agent (from a rogue agency) helping to carry out a seditious conspiracy.
The defense should call him to the
stand, along with his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the
whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to
then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate.
It
could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of.
What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who
supervised him, and who exactly were his associates?
And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the
“whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath.
He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with
losing his license to practice law.
Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he
was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman,
bring them all in and compel their testimony under penalty of perjury. This will eventually get America right in its weakened
mind.
"... the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen. ..."
"... the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately hamper their own servants and damage their own tools? ..."
"... damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses. ..."
"... First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such moves impact their profits. ..."
Hopefully readers can now clearly see that the bunny persona is disingenuous and is here primarily for spin management.
psychohistorian @36 , on the other hand, is quite legit and raises points that are worth discussing.
So we have to ask, cui bono?
Lets start answering that question by identifying who is not benefitting:
The American public economically...except the top X%
The Congress Critters that are being made to look corrupt
The Deep State of various branches of government
Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations
Point #1 is no big surprise. The elites (including Trump) firmly believe that what is good for them personally is good for
everyone. What is good for the lord of the land is good for his serfs, right? There is, however, a caveat to this that I want
to touch on later.
Points #2 and #3 are problematic. ...the credibility
of the Congress Critters is undeniably taking a severe hit. As well the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed
to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and
of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public
to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen.
So points #2 and #3 are absolutely true, but they are problematic because they conflict with the narrative that the circus
we've been watching play out in D.C. since the 2016 elections is all intentional and choreographed by the elites. I don't think
anyone here would dispute that the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites
most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately
hamper their own servants and damage their own tools?
No, these two points by themselves expose the falsity of the notion that
what we are witnessing playing out in the imperial capital was the intended outcome of the 2016 elections. Furthermore, damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses.
Point #4 about who is not benefiting, "Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations" , is related to
the caveat that I mentioned above.
First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful
of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They
need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can
easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth
is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs
whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such
moves impact their profits.
The reader should be able to see that not all oligarchs are created equal. While all of the oligarchs share the imperative
of maintaining the oligarchy itself and expanding the empire that it operates within, their interests begin to diverge outside
of those issues. In particular, finance oligarchs and real estate oligarchs have a natural antagonism. This antagonism also
exists between the finance oligarchs and the fixed-capital oligarchs. Current imperial policy strongly favors the finance oligarchs.
The other oligarchs are willing to accept that so long as the economy continues to grow in real terms, but that hasn't been
happening for years now within the empire. Because of this we are now seeing infighting among the oligarchs, with Trump being
on the side of the non-finance underdogs.
Does this mean that the reader should become a fan of Trump? Not if one is prone to latching onto powerful individuals as
saviors. If, on the other hand, personal emotional attachment can be kept at the level of rooting for one stranger in a drunken
bum fight over the other stranger then it should be perfectly acceptable. It doesn't hurt to cheer the oligarchs on when they
fight among themselves.
@ Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
The problem is that you don't got to change the rules when they don't fit you anymore. The USA has deprived the rest of
the world of "dignity" for 70 years. Now that China is being better than the USA at its own game, it's going to change the
game?
Unfortunately to the likes of Rubio, that's not how the real world works, because the real world is not a game.
The aggregate household debt balances in the U.S. increased to a record high of $13.95 trillion, or 73 percent of the country's
GDP, in the third quarter of 2019, said a recent report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Mortgage balances accounted for 2/3 of the total household debt balances, followed by student loans that took 11 percent
of the share. Besides, auto loans and credit card balances also stood at a high level.
Each household in the U.S. carrying at least one form of debt owed an average of $144,100, said a report issued by America's
Debt Help Organization.
For comparison, the American manufacturing sector makes only 12% of its GDP. Manufacturing is so tiny in the USA that we
had recession in the sector this year and that didn't moved its GDP growth rate at all.
That's why the USA -- which has been failing in this trade war against China -- will ultimately fail in its Trumpian attempt
to revert to isolationism: the empire is now essentially a financial superpower. To maintain your status as a financial superpower,
you have to keep yourself economically open, otherwise the financial architecture that sustains the Dollar Standard will crumble
(since the USD is fiat money).
If your country wants to be the world's sole superpower in a capitalist world, it has to have two titles/belts: financial
and industrial superpower.
In 1946, the USA was both, hence it was the sole capitalist superpower. When Germany and mainly Japan threatened its title
as the sole industrial superpower in the 1970s, the USA maneuvered to curb their developments in the Plaza Accord of 1985,
which forced both nations to value their respective currencies in relation to the Dollar.
The maneuver was providential, but it worked. Germany and Japan would enter into recession in the early 1990s, to never
recover again. However, it came with a cost to the USA: it had to outsource its manufacturing sector to China and content itself
in being just to retain the financial champion belt, scattering the industrial champion belt around Asia, thus letting this
"title" vacant. It stayed "vacant" for 20 years, until China, thanks to its socialist doctrine, was able to free itself from
the commodity cycle and middle income traps to launch itself in the direction of gaining the industrial superpower status.
div> Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top
who likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something like
"supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff , Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top who
likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something
like "supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Excellent posting thus far. Just one thing to add to your analysis: the non-finance oligarchs are more dependent on the
finance oligarchs than the other way around.
b's posting says:
"The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between
Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi.."
I can't see those two trusting each other on anything. And the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell, appeared on Fixed News
last night and insisted that he will defer to Trump's lawyers in all strategic matters, including whether or not to call witnesses.
Given that the House Democrats have threatened that if this impeachment doesn't work, they will impeach him again on some other
matter; plus Trump's insane craving for vindication; or for the need to produce juicy sound bites for the re-election campaign;
or simply to stretch out the process past the Iowa caucuses, it is likely that this impeachment will have a more or less full
process, saving the summary treatment for the predictable follow-on impeachments.
Who was it that said "Repeating the same mistake, over and over, and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity"?
This strikes me as a George Zimmerman style impeachment.
Zimmerman's prosecutor purposefully charged him with murder, a case doomed to fail, rather than manslaughter, where it was
likely to fail but would have been more damning in the failure -- i.e. more facts would have been brought in and a big mess
would have been created.
Pelosi purposefully charges Trump with a very narrow impeachment, which is doomed to fail in the Senate, rather than conducting
a months-long investigation that would dig up what Biden was really doing in Ukraine and who he got permission from to operate
there. The investigation wouldn't have made impeachment more likely to succeed, it would have just made a bigger mess.
interesting that trump's numbers have risen so spectacularly in the last couple of weeks with this impeachment thing in my
view because it puts him (falsely or not) squarely back into the "maverick" role that the Public is ravenous to see, with all
its anger and desire to strike back at "the government" which is not doing well by the way (60% country moving in the wrong
direction; 17% approval of congress)--so, to me, the question is: Can Donald resist playing his cowboy savior maverick role
and pretending to straighten things out or not. Will he "do a deal" because McConnell is so convincing to him and he can pass
up a wonderful opportunity to put the Dems on trial for their obvious bullshit in the past three years, including what impetus
will be (coming right up) from Durham? I tend to believe the Donald Ego will welcome a Big Fight in The Impeachment Corral
much as he once delighted in phony wrestling.
--Patriot Act renewed
--New NAFTA passed this week
--New massive Defense bill passes
--New Paid Parental Leave for Fed employees(Clinton and Obama ignored this)
--Maybe a budget or at least easy continuing resolutions.
--Jews now nationality??? not too sure, more like the usual Trump stuff like moving embassy.
This stuff all happened in the last week or so after nothing happened for years.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are still making) money on the plundering
of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign
time on the TV for Trump.
Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment.
Posted by: Ed | Dec 12 2019 19:12 utc | 5
=====================
The imperialist foreign policy entails "bipartisan consensus", "interagency consensus" etc. Sometimes I think that establishment
Democrats are patriots [in their self-image] who prefer a political calamity over the betrayal of that consensus. Trump is
an incoherent idiot and he may be attacked in many ways. Should he be attacked for disastrous breach of international agreements,
starting with the crown jewel of Obama's tenure, multilateral agreement with Iran? Or for a mockery he made from negotiations
with North Korea? Or inflicting misery across the globe with "maximal sanctions" policies, pretty much against everybody*?
No, no and no.
As some of the incoherent statements of Trump were "friendly toward Russia" (while he continued Nuland-Boland policies),
THAT was selected as the main target. So we are going back to 2016. In 2018 Democrats switched gears for the duration of election
campaign focusing on health care, something that Trump monumentally botched, but the imperialist circus is back. Lamentably,
the "deplorables" are not impressed and the electorally wobbly Rustbelt may be lost again in 2020 because of this inanities,
but the consensus (bipartisan, inter-agency etc.) will be preserved. History will remember the selfless sacrifice of these
idiots.
=====
* I read an article in Russia, full of gleeful satisfaction, about Lithuanian dairy producers being hit by a round of Trumpian
sanctions, in spite of indefatigable efforts of Lithuanian government to be the most obedient (if often neglected) poodle of
USA.
[Rubio's] Defending against the global mercantilist aspirations of China is a very responsible course of action for a policymaker.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
I wonder if Rubio will stay on this topic for full 15 minutes. It is actually very much against GOP ideology, industrial
policy coordinated by the federal government -- is a 5-year plan (as Stalin practiced) next? Or will he revert to plan B, assuring
that American families live better than those in the Marxist hell that is Venezuela through sanctions, sabotage etc.? Plan
A, actually doing something about USAians having decent jobs, would make the likes of Rubio vomiting and defecating uncontrollably
as they couldn't digest it. So my bet is that he will stay with plan B.
Maybe I am dim, but I have read the transcript of the infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky several times and I do
not understand how it is being interpreted as Trump trying to pressure the Ukrainian president to smear Biden. As I read the
transcript, the favour Trump asked was for Ukraine to look into Crowdstrike. It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was
almost an afterthought, not the main thrust of the conversation.
I'm not American, maybe I am missing something that is culturally obvious to Americans? Do Americans read the transcript
and see something I don't? Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that
are said to have been an interference in the last election?
Not trying to derail the discussion here, but genuinely puzzled.
Posted by: Lorna MacKay | Dec 13 2019 19:50 utc | 69
"Do Americans read the transcript and see something I don't?"
Only the ones that are Trump-Deranged. Everyone else sees what you saw, standard operating procedure among all US elites
including of course all presidents and high officials. Both Obama and Sec. of State Hillary made dozens of calls exactly like
that.
I'll give it a 2-finger shot. The Credentialed 20%ers, along with their center-left-turned-right House masters are furiously
clutching their rosery bead (heres hatin on you and your pitiful brethren, Nancy!) .. while the Red Senators are all taking
turns hold Satan's pitchfork, hoping they don't get pricked .. or worse!, as the republican mope's support starts to melt away
like an iceberg at the equator !!
As an aside .. all one has to do is read the comments over at the Hedge, to see that many (but not all, by far ..) have, over
these past 3+ years, have gone through a phase-change, seeing the blatant bs .. from both legasy parties, without eyes wide
shut !
Both Trump and Zelensky were elected on platforms of peace with Russia. What was in that phone call that got Pelosi onboard
with impeachment, after years of taking it off the table?
I doubt very much that it was the claimed statement of Trump asking for help with a corruption investigation. (Which is perfectly
legal under a 1998 Treaty signed by Clinton).
Something got that CIA spy running to Adam Schiff, and something got Pelosi to move forward. Did Trump and Zelensky speak of
the Forbidden thing, making peace?
Biden was not the front runner until they needed him to be. You would be hard pressed to find an actual Biden supporter. They
are telling us this, because otherwise the ridiculous impeachment charge would not make sense. (Not that it makes a whole lot
of sense anyway).
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still in
touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Lorna MacKay at 69, when the media tells you something, it doesn't mean it is true. Of course, the transcript doesn't show
anything wrong. The only Americans who are culturally programmed to see anything there are the ones whose brains have been
turned to mush by TDS. (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
It's not you, it's us.
If I had money to put on the impeachment trial in the Senate, it would be on Donald NOT doing a deal to save various butts
and FOR going for the Dems' jugualar(s) and let the chips fall where they may on the Repug side.
I just cannot see him acting "statesmanlike" and forgoing seeking vindication after the provocations of the past three years.
Would you? I mean, even normal-size egos have a "Make my day" threshold. I reckon that Trump's threshold was the beginning
of the actual impeachment "hearing."
It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was almost an afterthought
This is what I have contended. Trump didn't need to mention Biden at all.
Did he do it innocently? Was it an ego-driven mistake?
Maybe.
But Trump has done other things that suggest that he did so as kayfabe . He engaged in a heated campaign with
Hillary and promised to have a special prosecutor investigate her if he was elected. But within days of being elected announced
that he would not do so (his first broken promise). Was the Hillary-Trump battle really as contentious as it appeared?
Trump invited Nancy Pelosi to a White House meeting days before the vote for Speaker of the House. This gave Pelosi a boost
at a time when Democrats were grumbling that she didn't deserve to be Speaker (she had worked closely with GW Bush Administration).
Result: Pelosi was elected Speaker.
Lastly, it's strange that Hilllary and Pelosi were adamantly against impeachment wrt Russiagate (the Mueller Report
cited possible obstruction of justice), saying that voters should decide in 2020 but approved impeachment for Ukrainegate where
the grounds for impeachment are arguably worse. Their refusal to allow impeachment after the Mueller Report was widely seen
(by progressives) as the establishment protecting Trump. Impeachment over Ukrainegate conveniently ended such speculation
.
Impeachment over Russiagate could have brought unwanted public scrutiny of CIA-MI6 and the Deep State. Instead, AG Wm Barr
will make sure things are 'sorted' in a way that safeguards the Deep State. Not surprisingly, he just announced that the FBI
acted in "bad faith" - a mild rebuke that almost guarantees that no one will be held accountable.
Some believe that the political disaster that Democrats reap from impeachment will be hung around the neck of the progressives
that clamored for impeachment in Spring 2019 (after the Mueller Report). IMO that 'hunch' is likely to prove accurate.
Whereas it is very likely that not just Hunter but Joe Biden can be brought down, it would come at the expense of a massive
draining of a bipartisan Congressional / Senatorial money laundering swamp, with millions, perhaps billions in US tax dollars
being recycled back into campaign contributions, etc. Many heads might roll, including several on the Republican side of
the Senate chamber.
Thank you and exactly that.
There has been brief mention of Biden shenanigans in China too but now studiously avoided. Perhaps the same boondoggle there
as well or maybe that is the country behind the threat from Biden to Lindsay Graham re going down big time.
Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that are said to have been an
interference in the last election?
I fully agree with you. The Crowdstrike bust would give Trump the material needed to truly unravel the CIA (Brennan) and
FBI (Comey/Mueller)saboteurs. These pigs set out to smash Trump and his family, and Presidency. He will no doubt find a way
to extract revenge as he is known for that.
Pressing Zelensky on the Crowdstrike element is mighty good politics as it would likely disable the Democrat machinery for
many election cycles if the dogs of war are loosed on the DNC internal malevolence.
The Agreement to have limited charges (nothing related to Russiagate!) and no calling of witnesses (Bidens are safe) was
likely agreed in late Spring 2019 when the kayfabe was arranged.
Also, although there's been much hand-wringing about Joe Biden's electoral prospects, the kayfabe has helped Biden
as he now says that Trump focused on him because Trump fears him as a political opponent. This plays into the establishment's
main electoral ploy: electability!
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still
in touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Fascinating proposition. The Senate calls no witnesses and votes for impeachment? Unlikely, but I wont dismiss either that
or a drawn out trial and votes for impeachment - or not. Strange theatre this stuff.
One thing for sure - if the Senate votes to impeach all hell will break out in the Repugnant party. The USA political serenity
has been totally disturbed by Trump's election (or should I say Hillary Clinton's capitulation and not campaign in three key
states).
If Trump gets re-elected, if Big Tech continues to evade accountability, if imperial
adventures continue abroad, if migrant farmworkers cannot feed their families, you can trace
it back to this Tuesday, and the actions a House Speaker took while nobody was paying
attention .
-- David Dayen, The American Prospect (emphasis added)
As the Impeachment Drama lumbers to a 2020 conclusion, morphing into its variant selves and
sucking life from every other story the media most folks attend to are inclined to tell,
unwatched things are happening in its shadow.
Nancy Pelosi has used end-of-year urgency and the impeachment distraction to pass four
pieces of major legislation, three of which will become law, all on the same day.
NAFTA 2.0 is one of them. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, agreed under pressure to
approve Pelosi's House version of NAFTA 2.0, rebranded "USMCA," or United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, for obvious reasons. This is a deal he should never have made, yet he made it.
Consider who Trumka is -- a bridge between the neoliberal mainstream of the Democratic Party
and the (presumably further left) labor movement that supports and sustains it. In other words,
he's the person who blesses neoliberal policies as "progressive" (thus retaining mainstream
Democratic Party approval) while modifying those policies in the margins to be less terrible
(thus retaining the approval of progressives, who want to think of him as opposed to
neoliberalist policies).
He's the person, in other words, who makes the labor movement look less like a puppy of the
Democratic Party establishment to progressives, while keeping the labor movement (and himself)
firmly in the Party establishment tent. The drama of "Will Trumka approve USMCA?" we recently
witnessed exemplified this role.
To anyone with two cells in their brain, it was obvious as soon as the question was asked
that he would approve USMCA. The stage was set; his arrival on it announced; the spotlight was
ready and bright. Would he really walk onto this stage at this late date and say no to Party
leaders? Of course not.
Would he have been able to stay in his lofty perch if he had? His job was to bless the cake
after it had been baked, not to unbake it.
What pressure was Trumka under? First, obviously, from the Democratic Party and its
billionaire donors, to give them what they and the Republicans -- and Donald
Trump -- all wanted, a neoliberal-lite trade deal that could become in Nancy Pelosi's words "a
template for future trade agreements a good template."
Second, Trumka was under pressure from his union base itself (so say some, including David
Dayen in the piece linked below), many of whom are Trump supporters, to give President Trump a
signature first-term victory, just in time for the start of his second-term campaign.
Do I believe this latter explanation? No, but I believe Trumka believes it. And if indeed it
is true that Trumka has to serve Trump, at least in part, in order to serve his own base, it's
further evidence of the careerism of his actions, in contrast to behavior from actual
labor-movement principles.
Here's Dayen on this sordid tale (emphasis added):
Pelosi got
AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka to sign off on the U.S.–Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA), handing Trump a political victory on one of his signature issues. Predictably, White
House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately gushed, calling USMCA "the biggest and
best trade agreement in the history of the world."
It's, um, not that. Economically, USMCA is a nothingburger; even
the most rose-colored analysis with doubtful assumptions built in shows GDP growth of
only 0.06 percent per year. There's one good provision: the elimination of the investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) provision that allowed corporations to sue governments in secret
tribunals over trade violations. There's one bad provision: the
extension of legal immunity for tech platforms over user-generated content, put into a
trade deal for the first time. This will make the immunity shield, codified in Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act, much harder to alter in the future. Pelosi has called this
deal a "template" for future agreements, though trade reformers have called it a bare minimum
floor.
Pelosi
tried to remove the immunity shield , but abandoned the request. She did succeed in
removing a provision for Big Pharma that extended exclusivity periods for biologics. The
Sierra Club has termed the deal an "
environmental failure " that will not have binding standards on clean air and water or
climate goals. But the threshold question on the USMCA was always going to be labor
enforcement: would the labor laws imposed on Mexico hold, improving their lot while giving
U.S. manufacturing workers a chance to compete? There was also the open question of why the
U.S. would reward Mexico with a trade deal update when trade unionists in the country
continue to be kidnapped and killed.
In his statement, Trumka lauds the labor enforcement, noting provisions that make it
easier to prove violations (including violence against workers), rules of evidence for
disputes, and inspections of Mexican facilities, a key win. But I've been told that the
AFL-CIO did not see the details of the text before signing off, which is unforgivable ,
especially on trade where details matter. There was
no vote by union leaders , just a briefing from the AFL-CIO.
At least one union, the Machinists, remains opposed , and
others were noncommittal until they see text. The Economic Policy Institute, which is
strongly tied to labor, called the agreement " weak tea at
best ," a tiny advance on the status quo that will not reverse decades of outsourcing of
U.S. jobs.
Meanwhile, back at the Trump re-election ranch:
While the economics are negligible (and potentially harmful on tech policy), on the
politics
activists are losing their mind at the prospect of a Trump signing ceremony, with labor
by his side, on a deal that he will construe as keeping promises to Midwest voters . "Any
corporate Democrat who pushed to get this agreement passed that thinks Donald Trump is going
to share the credit for those improvements is dangerously gullible," said Yvette Simpson, CEO
of Democracy for America, in a statement. Only a small handful of Democratic centrists were
pushing for a USMCA vote, based mostly on the idea that they had to "do something" to show
that they could get things done in Congress. Now they've got it, and they'll have to live
with the consequences.
I guess helping re-elect the "
most dangerous president ever " pales in comparison to passing bipartisan-approved
neoliberal trade deals.
One of Richard Trumka's jobs, if he wants to stay employed, is to make sure neoliberal Party
leaders like Nancy Pelosi are happy and well served while simultaneously keeping progressives
thinking that Big Labor is still in their corner even on issues the donor class most cares
about.
"... Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA) office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny his status as the whistleblower. ..."
NY Post Editorial Board Names Eric Ciaramella As Whistleblower by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 - 10:30 0
SHARES
The
New York Post Editorial Board has named CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower at
the heart of the Trump impeachment saga, confirming an October 30 report by
RealClearInvestigation 's Paul Sperry which has been widely cited in subsequent
reports.
Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is
apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps . In a sign of how farcical
this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names
during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the
whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats
angrily denounced the "outing." If you don't know the man's name, how do you know the man's
name? -
New York Post
Ciaramella, a registered Democrat, is a CIA analyst who specializes in Russia and Ukraine,
and ran the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council (NSC) in 2016. He previously worked
for then-NSC adviser Susan Rice, as well as Joe Biden when the former VP was the Obama
administration's point-man for Ukraine. He also worked for former CIA Director John Brennan,
and was reportedly a highly valued employee according to
RedState ' s Elizabeth Vaughn. He also became former National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster's personal aide in June 2017, was
called out as a leaker by journalist Mike Cernovich that same month.
He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa , a Ukrainian-American lawyer and Democratic operative
involved in allegations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election by releasing the so-called
'Black Ledger' that contained Paul Manafort's name.
In 2017, former White House chief strategist
Steve Bannon wanted Ciaramella kicked off the National Security Council over concerns about
leaks.
Earlier this year, Ciaramella ignited the Democratic impeachment efforts against President
Trump when, using second-hand information, he anonymously complained that Trump abused his
office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in
2016.
Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA)
office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand
information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny
his status as the whistleblower.
Steve Bannon was only on the National Security Council for two months, and was removed in
early April 2017 at the direction of the President. So the story about Bannon valiantly
trying to save the day is probably more of his resume padding.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In testimony before Congress this week, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander
Vindman, an Army officer with more than 20 years of service, told lawmakers that he had heard
the president try to pressure Ukraine's president to unearth dirt on a political rival. In
response, the president's allies have decided to make an issue of Vindman's birthplace. They
say his infanthood in Kiev -- he left at age 3 -- reveals something about his character and his
allegiances. They are right, but in exactly the wrong way.
Here, you should pardon the expression, are some facts and a little bit of history. When
Vindman was born on June 6, 1975, Ukraine was enveloped in the Soviet Union. At birth, Vindman
would have been added temporarily to his parents' internal passports, a document that all
Soviet citizens were required to carry starting at 16, mostly to make sure they were not
residing somewhere without official permission.
That passport contained the infamous "fifth line" or "pyati punkt," in Russian, which had
been created under Josef Stalin and listed the holder's "nationality." Vindman was born in
Ukraine, but that line would not have said "Ukrainian" unless his parents had chosen to defy
the law. It would have said "Jew."
In the Soviet Union, Jews were considered separate and apart from other nationalities,
especially in two of the republics, Russia and Ukraine, where the local party enforcers were
particularly happy to do the Kremlin's dirty work. You could be born in Minsk or Pinsk, or Omsk
or Tomsk, or even Alexandrovsk or Petropavlovsk, and if you were born to Jewish parents, your
passport was likely stamped "Jew."
When I first learned this, upon arriving in Moscow in May 1983 as a reporter for the
Associated Press, I was outraged. I saw it like the Nazi's yellow star. I couldn't imagine how
Jewish people could stand it.
Until one day, I put that question to Naum Meiman, a Jewish mathematician who was part of
Andrei Sakharov's circle of dissidents. The answer was simple and humbling.
He didn't want "Russian," or any other so-called Soviet nationality, in his passport.
Russians didn't consider him Russian, officially or otherwise, and he didn't want the label.
"I'm a Jew who is forced to live in Russia, not a Russian," he said more than once.
I am certainly not speaking for Vindman, whom I do not know, but I have never met a Jew who
fled the Soviet Union and felt any kind of loyalty to the country -- one where Jews were
spurned from birth and then imprisoned within the state's borders until it decided to allow
them to leave. In those days, the Soviet Union revoked émigré's citizenships, in
what was supposed to be a final act of deep humiliation, but was invariably a badge of
pride.
"Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside
the White House, apparently against the president's interest," Fox News host Laura Ingraham
told viewers Monday.
The circumstances of Vindman's birth argue for a different interpretation. They show him to
be part of a tradition of 20th century Eastern European Jews who suffered under tyrannies of
the left and the right. These people fled the first chance they had to a country that would
accept them as fellow citizens, one where they would not be constantly questioned about their
loyalties. For many decades, that country was the United States.
To contact the author of this story: Andrew Rosenthal at [email protected]
Retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack spoke to "Nightline" ahead of Vindman's testifying
before the House Intelligence Committee during a public impeachment hearing of President
Trump.
Former democrat
21 days ago Mr Vindman looks more like a doorman, than a Army Officer in that uniform !
Larry
21 days ago
What's that "thing" on his ring finger (appears wooden)? Is that from his partner "Husband"?
In my US Army years, soldiers were dishonorable discharged from this "Criminal Offense" !
A retired Army officer who worked with
Democrat "star witness" Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims
Vindman "really talked up" President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in
front of Russian military officers.
In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman
said that he "verbally reprimanded" Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for
himself. " Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political activist in
uniform."
Hickman's former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has
since gone on the record to corroborate his story.
Hickman, 52, says he's a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and
who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.
The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made
fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers "uncomfortable." For
example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans
"rednecks" -- a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a
big laugh at America's expense.
Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the
House Intelligence Committee and testified
that he'd had "concerns" about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman's testimony rested on his negative opinions of the
call, rather than any new facts about the call.
Vindman's former boss, NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison, threw cold
water on Vindman's claims
in his own testimony later in the week, saying he didn't have concerns that "anything
illegal was discussed" in the phone call. Morrison also testified that Ukrainian officials
were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until
late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call.
"Completely Beyond Reproach"
Hickman said he decided to come forward because Vindman "disobeyed a direct order from
the commander-in-chief, his boss," made his testimony "about his foreign policy opinions
versus facts," and "wore his Army service uniform to make a political statement" against the
president.
"Then right on cue, the mainstream media began calling him a war hero with a purple
heart, and completely beyond reproach," Hickman wrote in a statement to American Greatness
and another journalist. "Knowing his political bias, backed by his somewhat radical
left-leaning ideology, it was my obligation, indeed my duty, to come forward with this
information. I couldn't go to the same mainstream media to put it out, nor could I go to the
Army, as they're backing Vindman, so I took to Twitter, a source for getting the truth out,"
he added.
According to Hickman, Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian
embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013. He told American Greatness that he also met
Vindman's twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman while he was stationed in Germany.
"I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in
Grafenwoher," Hickman wrote on Twitter. "He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was
assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (US Army Europe).
He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all
Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military
Planner."
Like his twin, Eugene Vindman has forged a career in White House civil service. In fact,
The Wall Street Journal reported
that it's possible Eugene Vindman might also be called to testify. Alexander Vindman
has stated that Eugene Vindman, also called Yevgeny Vindman, "witnessed (the) decision to move Trump-Zelensky call's
transcript to a top secret server," The Journal reported of the president's call to the president of Ukraine.
Vindman's twin brother lists his title as attorney at the White House on his Facebook page. Born Yevgeny Vindman, he
goes by Eugene Vindman on social media.
The twin's Facebook page explains that he is an attorney at The White House and a former Attorney at Judge Advocate
General's Corps, United States Army. He also says that he is a former Senior Trial Counsel at U.S. Army and former Major at
United States Army.
According to JTA
, Eugene Vindman is a lawyer on the national security council.
CNN called
Eugene Vindman "the chief ethics counsel at NSC."
His Facebook page also provides the following biographical details about Eugene:
Studied Law School at University of Georgia
Studied General Administration at Central Michigan University
Studied at UGA School of Law
Studied History at SUNY Binghamton
Went to Franklin D.Roosevelt High School
Lives in Washington, District of Columbia
From Brooklyn, New York
2. Eugene Vindman Was a Campaign Strategist for a Democratic Congressional Candidate
The Vindman brothers.
Eugene Vindman's Facebook page also describes him as a "former Campaign Strategist at Bobby Saxon for Congress (GA
District 10)."
Saxon ran as a Democrat. According to an article in
The Red & Black
, Saxon was running for public office for the first time and called himself a "regular guy."
The 2008 article describes him as saying, "I'm 46-years-old, and I've never run for an office. Most of all, I'm a
frustrated American who's mad that politicians have no clue what it's like to be one of us. We need regular people with
common sense in Washington D.C."
Like Eugene Vindman, Saxon had an Army background. "I'm a major in the Georgia Army National Guard," he explained.
3. Eugene Vindman Was Involved in Efforts to Find Roadside Bombers in Iraq
A 2010 NPR article
on the U.S. connecting dots to find roadside bombers quoted Eugene Vindman. "Maj. Eugene Vindman, a
JAG officer, or judge advocate general" said that a "network analysis course put him and other military lawyers in a better
position to carry out oversight responsibilities in Iraq," the article stated.
"[You could] maybe do a little bit of analysis on your own or ask some intelligent questions of the targeteers," Eugene
Vindman said to NPR, "to make sure that the target they've identified is not a guy that might have made a wrong phone call
to a bad guy but actually has enough links to that bad guy through other activities to actually be a bad guy and therefore
be a legal military target."
Alexander Vindman is also similarly invested in American government work. "Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area
Officer specializing in Eurasia," he wrote. "In this role, I have served in the United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine
and Moscow, Russia. In Washington D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of Joint
Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at
the National Security Council."
... ... ...
There is another Vindman brother. He's older than the twins and his name is Leonid Simon Vindman.
Leonid Simon Vindman is the "Founder and Managing Partner, Tungsten Capital Advisors" and "has approximately thirty
years of experience in the financial markets,"
his company
website states.
"During the past twenty five years, he has been focusing predominantly on Central Eastern Europe, Russia and Central
Asia where he completed some of the biggest investment and advisory transactions in the region," according to the website.
"He also completed transactions in the Middle East, and traveled extensively in Asia and Africa."
The page continues: "Prior to founding Tungsten he was a Managing Director responsible for investment banking
origination and client coverage activities for Russia and CIS region at UniCredit Group – the largest international bank in
Central and Eastern Europe at that time. Previously he worked as a Vice President Investment Banking at JPMorgan Chase,
Principal Banker at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the EBRD), Senior Associate at Bankers Trust and
Manager at Central Europe Trust."
Leonid Vindman "received his Bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College and an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth
Graduate School of Business," his company website says.
The company's founding and managing partner Maria Starkova-Vindman is described as "an art historian and art advisor"
who previously "worked at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow as an assistant keeper and curator, and taught on the
Courtauld MA course on global contemporary art."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman admitted that he had been offered to serve as minister of defense for
Ukraine.
Vindman, 44, explained
during his impeachment testimony that he had been offered the position three times but
declined the position because of his loyalty to the United States. The lieutenant colonel was
born in Ukraine, but his family immigrated to the U.S. when he was a toddler.
Vindman claimed he did not know why he was offered the high ranking position of defense
minister.
"Every single time, I dismissed it. Upon returning, I notified my chain of command and the
appropriate counterintelligence folks about the offer," said Vindman, later adding, "I think it
would be a great honor, and frankly, I'm aware of service members that have left service to
help nurture the developing democracies in that part of the world."
He declined the offer and told Congress, "I'm an American. I came here when I was a toddler,
and I immediately dismissed these offers. I did not entertain them."
Vindman added that he found the offer "rather comical," saying, "I was being asked to
consider whether I would want to be the minister of defense, I did not leave the door open at
all. But it is pretty funny for a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, which really is
not that senior, to be offered that illustrious of a position."
He explained that he had no follow-up questions about the position with his chain of
command. Vindman said he was not concerned about a "perception of a conflict of interest"
following his offer because he only valued the opinion of his American colleagues.
"Frankly, if they were concerned with me being able to continue my duties, they would have
brought that to my attention," said Vindman.
Vindman is the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council. He testified that he
raised concerns about President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky,
calling it "improper."
'Pushing a coup': Fellow soldiers slam Vindman for
testifying in uniform by Russ Read | November 08, 2019 03:49
PM
Print
this article S ome of
Alexander Vindman's fellow soldiers have blasted him for testifying in uniform during the
House impeachment hearings, accusing him of politicizing the military by stating personal
opinions that were highly critical of President Trump.
Vindman, 44, the National Security Council's
Ukraine director , was thrust into the political spotlight when he testified before
Congress on Oct. 29 as one of the few people who listened in on a
July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
His
appearance in uniform has been a point of contention. Military members detailed to the NSC
typically wear suits but Vindman gave his testimony in uniform, and was lauded for having been
awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in Iraq, and a Combat Infantryman's Badge.
"This is a bad look for him to be in uniform," an active duty military officer stationed at
the Pentagon told the Washington Examiner. "He makes it look like the Army is behind
this. Like the Army is pushing a coup."
Another officer was concerned that Vindman's testimony veered too much into personal
assessment. "I don't care what he thinks, he's entitled to his opinion," the officer said. "But
it's an opinion and he should give it without the uniform."
A third officer said that Vindman's weight indicated he would be unlikely to pass the Combat
Fitness Test even though he had achieved a Ranger tab earlier in his career.
Matt Zeller, an Afghanistan veteran and fellow at the American Security Project, defended
Vindman. "I think he's a patriot, and how he's been treated is an abomination," Zeller told the
Washington Examiner . "All he is is a public servant doing his duty."
Vindman might have been required to wear his uniform, Zeller said, although where Army
regulations come down on the issue is unclear. The Army's Training and Doctrine Command did not
respond to questions from the Washington Examiner .
H.R. McMaster, who was an active duty lieutenant general in the Army during his tenure as
national security adviser, did not normally wear his uniform at the White House.
Military personnel such as Vindman detailed to the NSC operate within a unique system.
Unlike other troops who report to military commanders, military NSC staffers fall under
directors within the NSC itself. As a Ukraine expert, Vindman reports to civilian Andrew Peek,
who replaced Tim Morrison as the NSC's senior director for European and Russian affairs after
Morrison announced his departure last Wednesday, one day before he testified before the House
impeachment proceeding.
Military detailees generally are assigned to a unit within the Department of Defense for
administrative issues such as leave and pay. Performance reports, however, are handled by the
individual's boss on the NSC.
Most NSC staffers are drawn from the military and various other government agencies. They
generally are recruited via word-of-mouth, another change from typical government agencies that
are notorious for their long application processes.
The Reagan administration's NSC included Lt. Gen. Colin Powell and Lt. Col. Oliver North, .
Powell was national security adviser from 1987 to 1989 and went on to become chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State . North was on the NSC from 1981 to 1986 and
testified in uniform during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Vindman returned to work after his testimony and is expected to stay on at the NSC until his appointment ends next summer.
Rudy Giuliani Can Barely Contain Himself Over His Ukraine Findings by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 -
17:05 0 SHARES
Rudy Giuliani is grinning like the Cheshire cat. His standard smile.
For the past several weeks, the personal attorney to President Trump has been in Ukraine,
interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence to shed light on what the Bidens were up to
during the Obama years, and get to the bottom of claims that Kiev interfered in the 2016 US
election in favor of Hillary Clinton. He has enlisted the help of former Ukrainian diplomat,
Andriy Telizhenko, to gather information from politicians and ask them to participate in a
documentary series in partnership with One America News Network (OANN) - which will make the
case for investigating the Bidens as well as Burisma Holdings - the natural gas firm which
employed the son of a sitting US Vice President in a case which reeks of textbook
corruption.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/zi2UWTO2DyY
According to the
Journal , Giuliani will present findings from his self-described "secret assignment" in a
20-page report .
Trump and Giuliani say then-Vice President Biden engaged in corruption when he called for
the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had investigated a Ukrainian gas company where
Hunter Biden served on the board. The Bidens deny wrongdoing, and ousting the prosecutor was
a goal at the time of the U.S. and several European countries . -
Wall Street Journal
( Note the Wall Street Journal's use of a straw man when they write: "The allegations of
Ukrainian election interference are at odds with findings by the U.S. intelligence community
that Russia was behind the election interference ."
Apparently the three journalists who collaborated on the article didn't get the memo that
two countries can meddle at the same time, nor did any of them read the January, 2017 Politico
article: Ukrainian
efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - which outlines how Ukrainian government officials
conspired with a DNC operative to hurt the Trump campaign during the 2016 election - a move
which led to the disruptive ouster of campaign chairman Paul Manafort).
Telizhenko, the former diplomat, tells the Journal that the plan for the series was
conceived during the impeachment hearings as a way for Giuliani to tell his side of the story.
The former Ukrainian diplomat flew to Washington on November 20 to film with Giuliani, while in
early December he accompanied America's Mayor on the Kiev trip - stopping in Budapest, Vienna
and Rome.
Rudy comes home
Upon his return to New York on Saturday, Giuliani says he took a call from President Trump
while his plane was still taxiing down the runway, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
" What did you get? " Trump asked. " More than you can imagine ," answered the former New
York mayor who gained notoriety in the 1980s for taking down the mob as a
then-federal prosecutor.
According to the 77-year-old Giuliani, Trump instructed him to brief Attorney General
William Barr and GOP lawmakers on his findings. Soon after, the president then told reporters
at the White House, " I hear he has found plenty ."
Rudy has been working on this project for a while. In late January, he conducted phone
interviews with former Ukrainian prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yiury Lutsenko. On the call
was George Boyle -
Giuliani's Chief Operating Officer and Director of Investigations. Boyle started as a NYPD beat
cop in 1987, and was promoted to detective - eventually joining the Special Victims Squad. In
short, the ever-grinning Giuliani has some serious professionals working on this.
" When he believes he's right, he loves taking on fights ," said longtime Giuliani friend,
Tony Carbonetti.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
That said, Giuliani's efforts have not gone off without a hitch. In October, two associates
- Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom assisted with his Ukraine investigation, were
related in October on campaign-finance charges. Both men have pleaded not guilty, while
Giuliani denies wrongdoing and says they did not lobby him. Parnas, notably, was also on the
January call with Shokin and Lutsenko as a translator.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tc4nQD6eiW4
In pressing ahead on Ukraine, Mr. Giuliani has replaced the translation skills of Messrs.
Parnas and Fruman with an app he downloaded that allows him to read Russian documents by
holding his phone over them . But on his recent trip, he said, "despite whatever else you can
say, I missed them." -
Wall Street Journal
Trump opponents insist Giuliani is conducting shadow foreign policy and orchestrated the
ouster of former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch - who Ukraine's new president
Volodomyr Zelensky complained on a now-famous July 25 phone call accused of not recognizing his
authority.
In the impeachment hearings, witnesses accused Mr. Giuliani of conducting a shadow foreign
policy and orchestrating the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. He was described as
"problematic" and "disruptive" and, in testimony that cited former national security adviser
John Bolton, likened to a "hand grenade that's going to blow everybody up." Mr. Giuliani has
said he kept the State Department apprised of his efforts and that he was working at the
president's behest. -
Wall Street Journal
" Just having fun while Dems and friends try to destroy my brilliant career ," Giuliani
wrote in a text message while conducting his investigation overseas.
Never forget... Giuliani was up to his neck in the treasonous happenings on 9/11. For
that, he can NEVER be forgiven... no matter how much dirt he digs up in this inane Ukranian
circus.
Three j ournalists also wrote a WSJ piece October 22, '19; one author same as
December 13 piece. ( Identify a narrative?)
Excerpts:
" Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani have repeatedly promoted an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine
was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee before the 2016 election, and
that a related computer server is now located there. That theory is sharply at odds with the
findings of a special counsel investigation and a 2017 U.S. intelligence community report
that found Russia was responsible for the hack and leak of Democratic emails as part of a
broader operation intended to aid Mr. Trump."... ...
... ... " Mr. Giuliani, who didn't respond to a request for comment, had for months
pressed for Ukraine to investigate issues related to the 2016 election as well as Mr. Biden,
a potential 2020 rival of Mr. Trump. As vice president under President Obama, Mr. Biden led
an anti-corruption drive in Ukraine at the same time as his son received $50,000 a month for
sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, an arrangement Mr. Trump has called corrupt.
Mr. Biden and his son have denied any wrongdoing, and no evidence of wrongdoing has been
presented. "
John Glaser and Christopher Preble have written a valuable
study of the history and causes of threat inflation. Here is their conclusion:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy
in the 21st century serves as compelling evidence of that. Arguably the most important task,
for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct the threat
inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers
understand that the United States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be
reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation is how American politicians and policymakers manipulate public opinion and
stifle foreign policy dissent. When hawks engage in threat inflation, they never pay a
political price for sounding false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their
warnings may be. They have created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines over the
decades to ensure that there are ready-made platforms and audiences for promoting their
fictions. This necessarily warps every policy debate as one side is permitted to indulge in the
most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics
often feel compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of
proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated but invented out of nothing. For
example, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, but it is routinely cited as one of
the most significant threats that the U.S. faces. That has nothing to do with an objective
assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven pretty much entirely by a
propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's
missile program, for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a
primarily defensive tool -- and an important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points out, "Iran's
ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a
modern air force, Iran has embraced ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to
dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger
campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks
acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation in the U.S.: 1) expansive
overseas U.S. commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem
necessary for our security; 2) decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created
a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating the myths that sustain support
for the current strategy; 3) there are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign
policy and seek to perpetuate it; 4) a bias in our political system in favor of hawks gives
another advantage to fear-mongers; 5) media sensationalism exaggerates dangers from foreign
threats and stokes public fear. To those I would add at least one more: threat inflation
thrives on the public's ignorance of other countries. When Americans know little or nothing
about another country beyond what they hear from the fear-mongers, it is much easier to
convince them that a foreign government is irrational and undeterrable or that weak
authoritarian regimes on the far side of the world are an intolerable danger.
Threat inflation advances with the inflation of U.S. interests. The two feed off of each
other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to
U.S. security, every minor threat to some other country is transformed into an intolerable
menace to America. The U.S. is extremely secure from foreign threats, but we are told that the
U.S. faces myriad threats because our leaders try to make other countries' internal problems
seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most a peripheral interest of the U.S.,
but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are told by the more
unhinged supporters that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia
"over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most of the world's conflicts,
interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very
questionable and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership"
and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists struggle to identify why the
U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global
"leadership" is itself an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything
anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership" if one is so inclined.
To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of
"leading" the world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest and most enduring threats to U.S. security, because
it repeatedly drives the U.S. to take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant
amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons. We imagine bogeymen that we need to fight, and we
waste decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts, and in the end we are
left poorer, weaker, and less secure than we were before.
Daniel
Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
This deal confirms the hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit but there will be no additions to its core. ..."
"... The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the Democrats during this process would be enormous. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional voter support and not risk any Senate seats. ..."
"... The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both sides with uncertain outcome. ..."
"... That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached. ..."
"... Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they stand with their president and against the lame accusations. ..."
"... my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival. ..."
"... So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental. ..."
"... I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment. ..."
"... The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today. ..."
"... The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS. ..."
"... he Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits everyone, including Biden, except Trump! ..."
"... Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him, and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force... ..."
"... If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in survival mode. ..."
"... Yep, and not just centrism, but the whole neo-liberal philosophy. Not to worry though, big organised $ will win the day. ..."
"... ...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that going after Biden could open a flood of scandals. ..."
"... I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat. ..."
The Impeachment Deal Between The House And The Senate
Two weeks ago we analyzed the consequences of an impeachment process of President Donal
Trump. We found that the Democrats would lose by impeaching him and would therefore
likely censure him instead . We were wrong. A week later Pelosi announced
to proceed with impeachment.
Only today did I understand where I was wrong and what had since happened. Let me walk you
through it.
The earlier conclusion was based on this table of possible outcomes of an impeachment
resolution:
If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
If the House votes for censure, Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.
Looking at the choices it is quite curious why Pelosi took that decision and there has been
so far no in-depth explanation for it.
The rather short
House Resolution (also
here ) Pelosi let pass has only two articles of impeachment of Trump. The issues over which
he is supposed to be impeached for are
very limited :
Democratic leaders say Trump put his political interests above those of the nation when he
asked Ukraine to investigate his rivals, including Democrat Joe Biden, and then withheld $400
million in military aid as the U.S. ally faced an aggressive Russia.
They say he then obstructed Congress by stonewalling the House investigation.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said that he did not know that Trump withheld
the $400 million for Ukraine when he had the phone call with the president in which Trump asked
him to dig into the Burisma/Biden affair. The request itself is legitimate as Biden has lots of
dirt in Ukraine. But there was no quid-quo-pro and no bribery, at least not in the phone call
the CIA 'whistleblower' and some of the witnesses complained about. Where then is the evidence
that Trump abused his power?
The obstruction of Congress accusation is equally weak. Trump had rejected the House
subpoenas to his staff because he wanted a judicial review of their legality. They might indeed
infringe on certain presidential privileges. The court process would take several months but
the Democrats simply do not want to wait that long. So who is really obstructing the legal
process in this?
Law professor Jonathan Turley, who is not a Trump fan and had testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee, finds both points the Democrats make extremely week :
For three years, the same Democratic leadership told the public that a variety of criminal
and impeachable acts were proven in the Mueller investigation. None of those crimes are now
part of this impeachment.
Why? Because it would have been too easy an impeachment? Hardly.
Instead, the House will go forward on the only two plausible grounds that I outlined in my
testimony - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Unlike the other claims, the problem
is not with the legal basis for such impeachable offences but the evidentiary record.
This record remains both incomplete and conflicted. The Democrats have insisted on
impeaching by Christmas rather than build a record to support such charges.
...
This is now the fastest investigation with the thinnest record supporting the narrowest
impeachment in modern history.
...
The Democrats just gave Trump the best Christmas gift he could hope for under these two
circumstances ...
Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which
Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment
resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will
be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit
but there will be no additions to its core.
The House will then vote on it within the next week. The Senate will launch the impeachment
trial in January.
Which brings me back to the possible outcomes table:
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the
primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden
and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the
Democrats during this process would be enormous.
But Pelosi still took that way and allowed for only a very weak impeachment resolutions. That led me to assume that a deal was made that allowed Pelosi to go that way. But there was
no sign that such a deal was made. Only today do we get the confirmation, as open as we will ever get it, that a deal has
indeed been made.
Senate Republicans are coalescing around a strategy of holding a short impeachment trial
early next year that would include no witnesses , a plan that could clash with President
Trump's desire to stage a public defense of his actions toward Ukraine that would include
testimony the White House believes would damage its political rivals.
Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus.
"I would say I don't think the appetite is real high for turning this into a prolonged
spectacle," Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.), the chamber's second-ranking
Republican, told The Washington Post on Wednesday when asked whether Trump will get the
witnesses he wants in an impeachment trial.
...
Most notably, a quick, clean trial is broadly perceived to be the preference of Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) , who wants to minimize political distractions in an
election year during which Republicans will be working to protect their slim majority in the
chamber.
The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the
votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and
the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional
voter support and not risk any Senate seats.
The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is
because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both
sides with uncertain outcome.
The narrowness and weakness of the impeachment resolution that can not hurt the president
was in exchange for a no-fuzz process in the Senate that will not dig into Biden and will not
hurt the Democrats during next year's election.
That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as
polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow
resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous
defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also
guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the
he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached.
Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to
their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they
stand with their president and against the lame accusations.
Trump will loudly claim that he does not like that the Senate will shut down the issue as
soon as possible. He will twitter that the Senate must tear into Biden and other Democrats. He
will play deeply disappointed when it does not do that.
But my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution
prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real
impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival.
The question left is if there were additional elements in this deal. What could those be
about?
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 12, 2019 at 18:44 UTC |
Permalink
Don't forget Sanders.
Pelosi pulling back from any impeachment attempt would only serve to underscore the
pusillanimity of the Democratic leadership.
If the Democrats *must* do an impeachment but would be hurt by a Republican Senate hit back,
this deal makes perfect sense.
Clearly Trump doesn't care about doling out money to corrupt countries. If he did, he would
be stopping aid to Israel where Netanyahu has actually been indicted on multiple counts of
corruption.
So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I
think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental.
Dems will be able to paint swing state republicans that have been trying to distance
themselves from Trump as Trump lackeys for their 2020 reelection bids. Saying these GOP
senators are perfectly fine with inviting foreign interference into elections.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are
still making) money on the plundering of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment
trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty
option for the establishment.
Not sure. McConnell may actually prefer working against a Dem prez than working for a Pub.
Especially a Pub loose cannon like Trump. To date, McConnell has a better record in
obstructing Dem execut8ve plans than passing GOP proposals.
Bernard makes a lot of sense today. The swamp is on the verge of eating its own and
neither Pelosi or McConnell desire that.
Pelosi remains alive only through the deal she made with the Devil decades ago which she
continues to honor daily.
This quote from the cited WaPost article is too funny:
"Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus ."
[my emphasis]
The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years
already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a
conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But
the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today.
Someone wrote that this is the season of pantomime, and to that I must agree. Fantasies
and falsehoods peddled as realities all for the purpose of further enriching the few while
the many rejoice in their collective gullibility. Please, add another shot of brandy to my
eggnog!
B, you are right that deals have been made, but you are wrong to think Trump is in on it.
He may go along with it, but that does not mean he is arguing from a point of
weakness.
Here is the fact:
The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in
the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and
therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as
a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their
constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS.
If they look weak towards POTUS, the Dems will have signaled their acknowledgment that
this whole affair is in fact a distraction.
Therefore, you can see that the Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits
everyone, including Biden, except Trump!
It can be inferred that the Repubs are still dreaming of DJT's eventual dethronement and a
return to the standard operating procedure of the pre-DJT era.
Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him,
and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it
might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force...
Who knows. They have consultants to tell them how to play the game.
This deal confirms my long-held hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply
a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in
survival mode.
...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that
going after Biden could open a flood of scandals.
I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's
going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat.
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
If the allegations against the president are all completely false, then his supporters can
continue to back him with a clear conscience, because anything and everything negative they
hear about the president must be false. The consistency of that message is more important than
the actual details, which frequently end up contradicting complex explanations for the
president's innocence that are often incongruous with each other, such as the
insistence that Robert Mueller's investigation was a "total exoneration" of the president,
but also " total bullshit ."
"... Yes, something happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us ..."
"... David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve our interests." ..."
This new front opened
when Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly
insisted during last month's impeachment hearings that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election against Trump. That drew
a stern rebuke from one witness asked to testify, the former Trump National Security Council adviser Fiona Hill, who
warned that congressional Republicans were spreading "a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by
the Russian security services themselves."
But Hill's words have not stopped Republicans from reprising those arguments. In late November, Senator John Kennedy
of Louisiana claimed during a television interview that Ukraine, not Russia, might have hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computers in 2016. After
retreating from that claim
, he went on
Meet the Press
on Sunday
and equated public criticism of Trump by some Ukrainian officials with
Russia's systematic interference campaign in 2016.
The Senate Intelligence
Committee, during its investigation of 2016 election meddling,
found no evidence of Ukrainian interference
. But when asked about Kennedy's comments this week, Senator Richard Burr
of North Carolina, the committee's chairman, came closer to endorsing rather than repudiating them.
"Every elected
official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton,"
Burr told NBC
. "Is that very different than the Russians being for Donald Trump?" Burr went on to liken Russia's
massive intelligence and hacking campaign to occasional public comments by Ukrainian officials critical of Trump. "The
president can say that they meddled because they had a preference, the elected officials,"
Burr said
. Other Republican senators, including John Barrasso of Wyoming, offered similar arguments this week.
The report released on
Monday by House Republicans likewise blurred the difference. "Publicly available -- and irrefutable -- evidence shows how
senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President
Trump's candidacy," the report insisted.
Tucker Carlson took these arguments to new heights
on his show Monday night, not only minimizing Russian involvement
in 2016 but questioning why the U.S. was opposing its incursion into Ukraine at all. "I think we should probably take
the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine," Carlson insisted.
Republican
foreign-policy experts are still worried about the attempts by GOP leaders to defend Trump by disparaging Ukraine.
"For starters, you end up validating the Kremlin line which they have been peddling since 2016:
Yes, something
happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us
," says Richard Fontaine, who runs the nonpartisan Center for
a New American Security and was the top foreign-policy adviser to the late Senator John McCain of Arizona. "It's one
thing if Putin says these things, or if Kremlin spokespeople say these things; people, I hope, will take it with a
gigantic mountain of salt. But when you have U.S. elected leaders saying these things, it gives it a significant dose of
credibility, and that's not a good thing."
David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on
Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve
our interests."
The accusations against Ukraine have drawn forceful pushback this week from Democrats, but only a few
Republicans -- most directly Senator Mitt Romney of Utah -- have openly condemned them. "What you are seeing unfortunately is
Republicans wanting to just adopt and parrot the Trump talking points, which also coincide with the Putin talking
points," Van Hollen said.
"... According to the Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the Senate. ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine. ..."
"... Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according to the report. ..."
"... On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion" or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the process. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Senate Republicans To Let Bidens Off The
Hook? May Skip Witnesses In 'Expedited' Impeachment Trial by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 19:45 0
SHARES
While House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate
the Bidens for what looks like obvious corruption - Senate Republicans have no interest in
calling witnesses to determine whether Trump's request was justified in the first place.
According to the
Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to
testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson,
Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the
Senate.
Their reasoning? Senate Republicans have "no appetite" for it.
Senate impeachment rules require a majority vote to call witnesses, and with just two out
of 53 votes to spare, there is no "appetite" among Republicans to pursue testimony from
people that Democrats
blocked Republicans from subpoenaing during the House investigation . Indeed, Republicans
might forgo calling witnesses altogether, saying minds are made up on Trump's guilt or
innocence and that testimony at trial on the Senate floor would draw out the proceedings
unnecessarily. - Washington Examiner
Instead, top Senate Republicans are leaning towards calling a quick vote to acquit Trump
once House Democrats and the White House have delivered their arguments.
"At that point, I would expect that most members would be ready to vote and wouldn't need
more information," said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming - the #3 ranked Senate Republican. "Many
people have their minds pretty well made up."
"Here's what I want to avoid: this thing going on longer than it needs to," said Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC). " I want to end this. "
The president is not in danger of being removed from office by the Senate, a move that
requires 67 votes.
But in a trial, he is seeking exoneration . Some Republicans question whether that's
possible without hearing from witnesses, whether it be these or other less politically
charged figures. " Not sure how you have a fair trial without calling witnesses ," said one
Trump ally in the House.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
" How many senators would enjoy a Trump rally? That's probably your whip count for calling
Hunter, " a Republican senator said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. Senate Democrats
are not expected to provide any votes to call Biden or the others. Or they might ask so high
a price, demanding that in exchange, they be allowed to call Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
and Vice President Mike Pence, that Republicans balk. - Washington Examiner
"It becomes endless motions to call people, and I'm not sure what anybody gains from all
that," said #2 Senate Republican, John Thune of South Dakota.
That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden
and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine.
"President Trump's allies will want to see witnesses called. How many, and which witnesses,
will quickly become a dividing line," said former Trump adviser Jason Miller, who co-hosts an
impeachment-centric podcast with Steve Bannon.
Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according
to the report.
On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President
Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion"
or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the
process.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
Oh, you mean their own corruption will be exposed.
Democrats will claim that it was a rush to 'Political Judgement' and that they did all the
investigating and the Senate did nothing ... which will be true.
We need a complete Senate trial to bring to light the truth ... the IG report did not do
it and the DOJ seem impossibly incapable ... only chance is complete witnessed Senate
trial
I,m just curious to see if anybody has the balls to publish the names of all the grifting
family members of Senators and Congressmen and the details of what they are skimming and
where.......
I Guess Peter Schweitzer is the closest we will get.....
Well, I just watched Nadler's Articles of Impeachment presser. Jeez, I never saw the dems
so scarred and glum. Nancy looked like a zombie, as did all the rest. Check out the fat, ugly
bitch in the red jacket near Adam Schiff. Tells you all you need to know about the dems.
FBI Didn't Tell Surveillance Court That Carter Page Was "Operational Contact" For CIA
With "Positive Assessment" by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 07:55 0
SHARES
The FBI failed to inform surveillance court judges that Carter Page was an "operational
contact" for the CIA for years , and that an employee at the spy agency gave the former Trump
aide a "positive assessment," according to a Justice Department report released Monday.
The finding is included in a list of seven of the FBI's "significant inaccuracies and
omissions" in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against
Page, a longtime energy consultant who joined the Trump campaign in March 2016.
(emphasis ours)
The report said the FBI "omitted" information it obtained from another U.S. government
agency about its prior relationship with Page.
The agency approved Page as an "operational contact" from 2008 to 2013, according to the
report.
"Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with
certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA
application," the report stated.
Page told the Daily Caller News Foundation he believes the agency in question is the CIA.
Page has previously said he provided information to the CIA and FBI before becoming ensnared in
the bureau's investigation of the Trump campaign.
The report stated an employee with the CIA assessed Page "candidly" described contact he had
with a Russian intelligence officer in 2014. But the FBI cited Page's contact with the officer
to assert in its FISA applications that there was probable cause to believe that Page was
working as a Russian agent.
The IG faulted the FBI for failing to disclose to FISA judges that Page was an operational
contact for the CIA for five years, and that "Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts
that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals."
The report also stated that the FBI omitted that "the other agency's employee had given a
positive assessment of Page's candor."
The IG said the FBI's failure to disclose Page's relationship with the CIA "was particularly
concerning" because an FBI attorney had specifically asked an FBI case agent whether Page had a
current or prior relationship with the other federal agency.
***
[editor's note: Not only that, an FBI employee - undoubtedly 'resistance' lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , altered an email to specifically state that Page was "not a source" for
the CIA . ]
The FBI agent falsely asserted Page's relationship was "outside scope" of the investigation
because it dated back to when Page lived in Moscow from 2004 to 2007.
"This representation, however, was contrary to information that the other agency had
provided to the FBI in August 2016, which stated that Page was approved as an 'operational
contact' of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow)," the IG report
stated.
The report also said Page's CIA contacts considered him to have been candid about his
interactions with a suspected Russian intelligence officer who was later indicted for acting as
an unregistered agent of Russia.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 8 minutes ago
link
I sometimes think Page was a plant- he's vigorously defended Trump and slammed the CIA and
the hoax of the spying- but that could all be a ruse.
In my mind the jury is still out.
Papadopolous on the other hand- was clearly used, honey pot and all.
The entire "Russian collusion" investigation is another example of the Feds manufacturing
false evidence. Mitsud, supposedly a Russian agent, was actually an asset of US intelligence.
Ever since the foisting of the 17th Amendment, which destroyed the veto of the several states
of Washington excesses and corruptions, Washington D.C. has been the only REAL enemy that the
people have ever had.
Rudy is going to take a huge Trump Dump, right on the heads of the Libtards this
week....... Open wide Retards..........
=============
Breaking: Ukrainian Official Reveals Six Criminal Cases Opened in Ukraine Involving the
Bidens
Trump told the waiting reporters that his personal attorney former New York City Mayor
Rudy Giuliani "found plenty" of "good information" during his recent trip to Ukraine and
Europe.
Trump then added that he believes Giuliani wants to present a report to the Attorney
General William Barr and to Congress. Trump added Giuliani has not told him what he
found.
Giuliani reportedly traveled to Budapest and Ukraine this past week to meet with several
Ukrainian officials about corruption.
OAN reporter Chanel Rion has been traveling with Rudy Giuliani and reporting on his
investigations in Hungary and Kiev, Ukraine.
In her report released on Sunday night Chanel Rion mentioned that Ukrainian officials
showed her six criminal cases involving the Bidens, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
A more powerful force is at work here, the agencies are their tools, operators. We need to
get our heads out of the weeds if we are to identify the source. Whatever it is, it is likely
internal, thought a higher cause and convincing as CIA, FBI have bought in?
I read the linked article. Quite fascinating that Hillary and her minions were treated
with kid gloves (and nothing at all about Obama, Lynch, Holder, Jarrett, et al) and extended
every courtesy and soft-pedal, yet Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were greeted with platoons
of FBI ninjas and armored vehicles in early morning raids akin to those in Stalinist
Russia.
The FBI didn't tell the FISA court a lot of things. The FBI failed to tell the FISA court
the interview with Papadopoulos revealed there to be absolutely NO Russian collusion. The FBI
deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that would have freed General Flynn and ended the
investigations.
Instead, the FBI covered up the truth with omissions and lies. That what I call bias.
Call it willful blindness by omission, but I prefer to call it a criminal act and sedition
against a President.
This guy is an Annapolis grad and CIA contact and they destroyed him. Hes gonna get very
rich with lawsuits now. The thing that amazes me no one is talking about.........motivation.
All of these major and minor infractions add up to one thing.....an orchestrated attempt to
frame and over throw the President.\ of the United States
"... Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress . ..."
"... What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties. The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently. ..."
"... Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch. ..."
In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel
Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The
evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights
many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.
Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how
former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress .
What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties.
The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko
were not done independently.
Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence
priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously
protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey
Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.
Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general
public? Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.
You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.
It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was
one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump. It was Taylor who
engaged in carefully planned
text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam
Schiff's political coup effort.
Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine ('06-'09) and later helped the Obama
administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in
exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.
In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator
Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA's for Ukrainian 'whistle-blowers' who are
willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.
Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S.
Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the
aforementioned laundry process. The VISA's are unlikely to get approval for congressional
testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.
U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing
mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered
funds back through their various "institutes" and business connections to the foreign
government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]
The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money
laundering by granting conflict waivers , approvals for financing (think Clinton Global
Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the
State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of "indulgence fees", junkets,
gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.
If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the
entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.
Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out , because, well, in reality all of the U.S.
Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and
contributions from foreign governments.
A "Codel" is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments
terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a
campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The "institutes" is where the real foreign money
comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.
etc. There are trillions at stake.
[SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the
members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee.
As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has
full control over that Senator. This is how the system works.]
The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. And that is
the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump. In essence
President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to
be.
So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote
to impeach President Trump, it's not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to
look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer
President Trump did not interfere in their process.
McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their
sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and
she ain't about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain
will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.
Senator Lindsey Graham
announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that
touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is
specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the
swamps' financial endeavors. WATCH:
This open-secret system of "Affluence and Influence" is how the intelligence apparatus gains
such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S.
intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.
There's a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials
within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage
long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief
of being more important than the system.
Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the
intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.
Everyone loves money. I like money. The only question is how to earn them. Neither I, nor
you, nor many of us will cross a certain moral and ethical line (border), but there are
people without morality, without ethical standards, without conscience. We all look the same
outwardly, but we are all completely different inside.
Ukraine is Obama's **** , this is not Trump's ****. Trump's stupidity was only one - he
got into this ****. I wrote, but I repeat - USA acted as the best friend in relation to
Russia, having taken off a leech from Russia and hanging it on itself. Do you know such an
estate of Rothschilds - called Israel and its role in the life of USA?
So, Ukraine was for the Russians the same Israel in terms of meaningless spending. Look at
Vlad, in 2014 he looked like a fox who was eating a chicken, and on January 1, 2020 he will
look like a fox who eating a whole brood of chickens. I think he has portraits of Obama and
Trump in his bedroom.
Yes, indeed. Lindsey will bury the story, he is on the take. Your tax dollars at work. By
the way, the Fed picked up all of the Ukies gold for safekeeping at 33 Liberty St. NY, with
Yats permission, of course.... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
A glimpse into how elected officials accumulate millions, retire wealthy, pampered and
privileged....and I'm not talking pensions I'm talking corruption. Obama, Biden, Hillary,
Kerry, Holder, Rice and ALL the senior Obama Administration officials knew of each other's
corrupt sinecures.
Well, it is based on a OAN story. Believe it or not, they actually sent a reporter to
Ukraine to talk to people with knowledge of the matter and look what they came up with. Kind
of makes you wonder why other well funded news organizations never thought to do something
like that.
I don't know that we deserve this. We are all working people, with families to raise,
taxes to pay and the Dems and Commies have been working against us 24/7. And most of them get
paid to do so from government jobs that pay them 8 hours a day when many work 1 hour a day,
all the while scheming against us.
If Trump wins a second term, he is gonna **** these people up good.
Now that I've read the article, I'm both shocked and appalled at learning that Ukraine is
a money laundering operation for the politically connected. (They provide many other 'perks'
as well.)
I've warned about light in the loafers Lindsey as well as McConnell before and more than
once. Sessions should also be denied a re-admission into the swamp. There are others.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a
manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus
warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I agree with everything you say in the article, Mr. Larison. And yet, I have serious qualms
about whether Congress should impeach and remove Trump.
From a purely legal perspective, they should. But impeachment is a blend of legalism and
politics. And the politics here are murky at best. The problem is that Congress does not
come to these issues with clean hands. It is common knowledge that Congress, too, is
corrupt and sells out the national interest in favor of their own political and personal
interests on a daily basis. They have no moral credibility here; who are they to judge the
President? Neither the impeachment itself, nor the subsequent, apparently inevitable,
acquittal by the Senate will be seen as legitimate, except by partisans of the respective
acts. It is all the more problematic because an election is less than a year away.
Yes, I want Trump out of office, too. But unfortunately our Congress lacks the moral
legitimacy to do this; the impeachment and trial will serve only to reinforce each party's
views of the other as treasonous. The impeachment will be seen as an attempted coup, and
the acquittal will be seen as a whitewash and cover-up. (If by some odd circumstance he is
removed rather than acquitted, it will be seen as a successful coup, an undoing of the 2016
election.)
There are no really good outcomes from this scenario. It would, I think, be better for
the the country were the Democrats to reverse course and leave the removal of Trump to the
people next November. We have survived nearly three years of him, we can survive one more.
I fear the fallout from impeachment and trial will create more problems than are
solved.
I agree. I also respectfully disagree with Larrison's judgment and consider this
development as very dangerous for the Republic. We need to weight our personal animosity
toward Trump with the risks of his forceful removal on dubious charges.
Please remember that nobody was impeached for the Iraq war. That creates a really high
plank for the impeachment. And makes any Dems arguments for Trump impeachment not only moot
but a joke.
The fundamental question is: How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable,
and this entrapment impeachable?
The furor over Russian interference in the election, which was extremely minor, if
existed at all, compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the
corrupt and incompetent Clinton wing of Democratic Party leadership (Neoliberal Democrats.)
Political "shelf life" for whom is over in any case as neoliberalism is dead as an ideology
and entered zombie ( bloodthirsty ) stage. Hillary political fiasco taught them nothing.
Russiagate was and still is a modern witch hunt, the attempt to patch with Russophobia the
cracks in the neoliberal facade. Neo-McCarthyism, if you wish.
In view of the Iraq war, the impeachment of Trump means the absolute contempt for the
plebs. Again, Trump's election happened because neoliberalism as ideology died in 2008, and
plebs in 2016 refused to follow corrupt neoliberal democrats and decided to show them the
middle finger. They will not follow the neoliberal elite in 2020, impeachment, or no
impeachment. So the whole "Pelosi gambit" (and from the point of view of Nuremberg
principles she is a war criminal like Bush II and Co ) will fail.
The House Democrats did not act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the
evidentiary record, and provide the equality of procecutor and the defense in the process
which is the fundamental part of the Due Process prior to filing charges. A large part of
their witnesses (Karlan, Hill, Vindman) were just "true believers" (Karlan) or corrupt Deep
Staters (Hill, Vindman) taking a stand to defend their personal well-being, which is based on warmongering. And protect
their illegal role in formulating the USA foreign policy (actually based on the quality of Fiona Hill book alone, she should
be kept at mile length
from this area; she is a propagandist not a researcher/analyst)
Among State Department witnesses there could well be those who were probably explicitly
or implicitly involved in the money laundering of the US aid money via Ukraine
(Biden-lights so to speak)
The article of impeachment saying:
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in
a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
opens a huge can of worms (this is essentially the Moscow show trials method of removing
politicians.) This is equivalent to a change in the Constitution, introducing the vote of
no confidence as the method removal of the top members of the executive branch.
Impeachment is always a political decision. And here I am not sure the "Pelosi gambit"
will work. I think many independents, who would stay home or would vote for Dems in 2020
now will vote for Trump as a protest against the abuse of impeachment by the
Neoliberal/Corporate Dems.
That people are still dredging up the ludicrous Russiagate
conspiracy theory is beyond pathetic. If that were not enough, there is no
evidence that "Russian hackers" or anyone "screw[ed] with swing states'
election databases".
Full disclosure: were I allowed to decide Trump's
fate, impeachment would be the least of his fears. I would
subject him to the fate of the defendants at Nuremberg.
"... This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually governed by is a good thing. ..."
"... For the powers that be war crimes are not impeachable offenses. ..."
"... The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is Neo-Orwellian. ..."
"... Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment. ..."
"... The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt, the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact. ..."
"... Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping today in the IG report. ..."
"... Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars ..."
"... The verdict is prepared before the charges! ..."
"... The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear. ..."
"... Schiff started to look like a cornered animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman. ..."
"... Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin. ..."
"... I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even that while the play's afoot. ..."
"... "However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d 209 (1980). ..."
"... Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither. ..."
"... A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of Executive Privilege. ..."
"... JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is crucial. ..."
"... As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't evidence. ..."
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. –Matt 23:24
Patient readers, I had originally intended to compare and contrast the statements of the
four lawyers (Feldman, Karlan, Gerhardt, and Turley)
appearing before the House Judiciary Committee . But I changed course, for a few reasons:
First, Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt simply didn't produce serious documents; all were short,
and Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether to facts, or to law.
Turley's statement at least showed signs of legal reasoning, as opposed to preaching to the
choir, but there's no point my summarizing it;
you can just read it .[1]
Second, since the House Judiciary's report on the " Constitutional
Grounds for Impeachment " followed so soon after the lawyers' testimony that it could
hardly have been influenced by it, their testimony was evidently for show. Finally, this
abbreviated Season 2 of Impeachment! , "UkraineGate," reminds me of nothing so much as
Gish Gallop : There's
too much to track in the time frame available, the few trustworthy interpreters are
overwhelmed, and that's by intent. (Season 1, "RussiaGate," was more of a Gish stroll by
comparison.)
So I'm going to do something completely different. Conventional wisdom agrees that when
impeaching a President, the House plays the role of the prosecutor, and brings and prosecutes
the indictment; and the Senate then tries the case. From Senate.gov
, just as a change from citing the Federalist Papers, which I too shall get to:
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the
federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of
representatives, called "managers," acts as prosecutors before the Senate.
The question nobody seems to be asking is whether the House, in this impeachment
inquiry, is acting as a prosecutor should act[2]. That is the question I will ask in this post.
(I'm sensible that we have actual prosecutors in the readership, and so I'm going out on a limb
here; the fact that nobody I can find has gone out on this particular limb doesn't mean that it
is, or is not, a good limb to go out on. We'll see!)
The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law,
not merely to convict . The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with
integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate
criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal
charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and
convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the
constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants.
What then is justice? Philosophers differ, but here is a defintion from which "the rule of
law" (of which we hear so much) can be derived. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :
The third aspect of justice to which Justinian's definition draws our attention is the
connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules
– that is what the 'constant and perpetual will' part of the definition conveys.
Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that where two cases are
relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way . Following a rule that
specifies what is due to a person who has features X, Y, Z whenever such a person is
encountered ensures this. And although the rule need not be unchangeable – perpetual in
the literal sense – it must be relatively stable. This explains why justice is
exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially
applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to
behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable
information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).
The Law Dictionary conceptualizes the requirement for "impartial and consistent application
of rules" as fairness. From " The Four Pillars of the Rule
of Law ":
It's one thing for the laws to be written fairly, but if they are enforced in such a way
that is either arbitrary or unfair then the rule of law begins to break down. For example, if
a jurisdiction passes laws against drug use, but then only enforces those laws against a
particular ethnic minority or social group, then the laws are not being enforced fairly.
Citizens living under a rule of law system have a right to know that the laws are being
administered and enforced in a way that is fair and accessible.
There are many theories of justice, but surely the "impartial and consistent application of
rules" is understood by lay readers as fundamental. From the Washington Post, "
The U.S. court system is criminally unjust ":
We like to believe that decisions made in U.S. courts are determined by the wisdom of the
Constitution, and guided by fair-minded judges and juries of our peers.
Unfortunately, this is often wishful thinking. Unsettling research into the psychology of
courtroom decisions has shown that our personal backgrounds, unconscious biases about race,
gender and appearance, and even the time of day play a more important role in outcomes than
the actual law.
Having established that the House, when impeaching a President, acts as a Prosector, that
the duty of a prosecutor is not merely to seek conviction, but justice, let's now ask ourselves
whether the House, assuming it to have impeached Trump, will have acted in accordance with its
duties, or not.
As a sidebar, it may be urged that unlike a prosecutor's office, the House has no permanent
prosecutorial function. Indeed, House.gov seems, unlike the Senate, to have no page on
impeachment at all; and the House is structured
very differently :
The House is the only branch of government that has been directly elected by American
voters since its formation in 1789. Unlike the Senate, the House is not a continuing body.
Its Members must stand for election every two years, after which it convenes for a new
session and essentially reconstitutes itself -- electing a Speaker, swearing-in the
Members-elect, and approving a slate of officers to administer the institution. Direct,
biennial elections and the size of the membership (currently 435 voting Representatives) have
made the House receptive to a continual influx of new ideas and priorities that contribute to
its longstanding reputation as the "People's House."
It could be argued, then, that the "rules" for impeachment need only to be consistent during
the two years of a House session, and could then be changed at the next session, an evident
absurdity since the President serves for four years, and could presume himself acting
unimpeachably for two years, and then be impeached, for the same acts , in the third.
Clearly, some sort of institutional memory of what is impeachable and what is not, even if
tacit, must be shared among the three branches of government and the public -- even if not
adhered to by all. Fortunately, for Trump's impeachment, we have such repository in the person
of the Leader of the House -- one might call them the Chief Prosecturor -- Nancy Pelosi, to
whose remarkable statement I now turn. End sidebar.
Here is how Nancy Pelosi describes her past exercise of her prosecutorial function (in this
case, declining to prosecute:
DEAN CHIEN, STUDENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: So, Speaker Pelosi, you resisted calls for
the impeachment of President Bush in 2006, and President Trump, following the Mueller report
earlier this year.
This time it's different. Why did you impose – why did you oppose impeachment in the
past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our President
now?
PELOSI: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the question about – because when I
became Speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach President Bush,
on the strength of the war in Iraq[3], which I vehemently opposed, and again not –
again, I – I say "Again," I said – said at other places that I – that was
my we – all has always (ph) Intelligence.
I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the
leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq . It
just wasn't there.
They had to show us now – to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they
had. The Intelligence did not show that that – that was the case. So, I knew it was a
– a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was a, in my view, not a
ground for impeachment. That was – they won the election. They made a
representation . And to this day, people think – people think that that it was
the right thing to do.
If people think that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11, I mean it's as appalling what
they did. But I did – and I've said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it
forward.
(Remarkably, or not, Pelosi kept her knowledge that the Iraq War was built on lies secret
from the public. This doesn't strike me as the right approach to " a Republic, if you can keep it .") First,
apparently a President's "misrepresentation to the public" that led to war -- a war that
resulted, even in the early years of the war, in tens of thousands of civilian deaths,
thousands of American deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the Abu Ghraib torture
scandal -- is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." Pelosi would have us believe that Bush's
disinformation campaign was not, as Madison writes in Federalist 65 , a
case of "misconduct of public men, or, in other words the abuse or violation of some public
trust." And why? Because "[Bush] won the election." Except Pelosi gets the timeline wrong. Bush
won his election in 2004. The Democrats took back the House in 2006 -- how we cheered, then; it
was almost as satisfying as Obama's inaugural -- based in large part on Bush's botched handling
of Iraq. Pelosi "won the election." And then didn't do anything with her power.
Let's ask a little consistency from our Chief Prosecutor, shall we? Because that's what
justice demands? If "misrepresentation to the public the public" in service of taking the
country into war -- the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake, all the whackamole lies that Bush put
forth -- is not impeachable, then how on earth is what Trump did, even under the very worst
intepretation, impeachable? Are we really going to convict Trump because he -- Bud
from Legal insists I insert the word "allegedly" -- tried to muscle Zelensky? Here is
what Turley, who approached his statement as a lawyer would, did with that accusation . I'm
going to quote a great slab of this, because the whole thing ticks me off so much:
Presidents often put pressure on other countries which many of us view as inimical to our
values or national security. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama reportedly put
pressure on other countries not to investigate the U.S. torture program or seek the arrest of
those responsible.103 President Obama and his staff also reportedly pressured the Justice
Department not to initiate criminal prosecution stemming from the torture program.104
Moreover, presidents often discuss political issues with their counterparts and make comments
that are troubling or inappropriate. However, contemptible is not synonymous with
impeachable. Impeachment is not a vehicle to monitor presidential communications for such
transgressions. That is why making the case of a quid pro quo is so important – a case
made on proof, not presumptions. While critics have insisted that there is no alternative
explanation, it is willful blindness to ignore the obvious defense. Trump can argue that he
believed the Obama Administration failed to investigate a corrupt contract between Burisma
and Hunter Biden. He publicly called for the investigation into the Ukraine matters.
Requesting an investigation is not illegal any more than a leader asking for actions from
their counterparts during election years.
Trump will also be able to point to three direct conversations on the record. His call
with President Zelensky does not state a quid pro quo. In his August conversation with Sen.
Ron Johnson (R., WI.), President Trump reportedly denied any quid pro quo. In his September
conversation with Ambassador Sondland, he also denied any quid pro quo. The House
Intelligence Committee did an excellent job in undermining the strength of the final two
calls by showing that President Trump was already aware of the whistleblower controversy
emerging on Capitol Hill. However, that does not alter the fact that those direct accounts
stand uncontradicted by countervailing statements from the President. In addition, President
Zelensky himself has said that he did not discuss any quid pro quo with President Trump.
Indeed, Ambassador Taylor testified that it was not until the publication of the Politico
article on September 31st that the Ukrainians voiced concerns over possible preconditions.
That was just ten days before the release of the aid. That means that the record lacks not
only direct conversations with President Trump (other than the three previously mentioned)
but even direct communications with the Ukrainians on a possible quid pro quo did not occur
until shortly before the aid release. Yet, just yesterday, new reports filtered out on
possible knowledge before that date -- highlighting the premature move to drafting articles
of impeachment without a full and complete record.105
Voters should not be asked to assume that President Trump would have violated federal law
and denied the aid without a guarantee on the investigations. The current narrative is that
President Trump only did the right thing when "he was caught." It is possible that he never
intended to withhold the aid past the September 30th deadline while also continuing to push
the Ukrainians on the corruption investigation. It is possible that Trump believed that the
White House meeting was leverage, not the military aid, to push for investigations. It is
certainly true that both criminal and impeachment cases can be based on circumstantial
evidence, but that is less common when direct evidence is available but unsecured in the
investigation. Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set
for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is
meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither.
Put Turley's justifiable polemic against a childish West Wing view of international
relations aside. Just look at the triviality of the subject matter, whether you think Trump
is guilty or not . White House appearances. Military aid. Corruption investigations. How is
lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities im peachable? When it's the same prosecutor declining to indict for Iraq,
and deciding to indict for Ukraine? Whatever this is, it's not "the impartial and consistent
application of rules", and that means the House is failing in its prosecutorial duty to seek
justice, and not merely conviction.
NOTE Yes, I'm leaving the national security aspects of Ukraine aside. We can take up the
question of whether the interagency process should run foreign policy, or the President, and
the Blob's peculiar view of the national interest another time.
I agree with this analysis, but Madam Speaker Pelosi and her fellow players are not doing
what they are doing for the Republic's, the law, ethics, morality, and certainly not for
justice's sake. If they were, Pelosi would not have mentioned her prewar knowledge of
President Bush's and his Administration's lies on the reasons given for going to war.
This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their
coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by
the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to
believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually
governed by is a good thing.
Maybe TPTB truly believe that an increasingly ungovernable, immiserated, and desperate
society in an increasingly unpredictable climate is just another chance to consume the poor
instead of the poor consuming them.
The democrats couldn't go after the bush administration for falsely leading this country to
invade iraq, for one big reason . they were JUST as guilty . They, including clinton; voted,
and went on all the air waves, did op eds; all justifying the charade, that was the run up to
the iraq invasion.
People ought not forget,
EVERY bit of information proving the iraq war was a lie . was in plenty of places BEFORE the
invasion. And every establishment shill did their level best to not only ignore the truth,
but to discredit it with pathetic lies and rhetoric.
The democrats were just as guilty for iraq as the republicans.
And when the terrorists who were used as a ploy to blow up the twin towers, were being
protected by the fbi between 1998 and 2000.(look at Robert Wright and John Vincent fbi agents
from chicago office, who were told by superiors to "let sleeping dogs lie".. after a two year
investigation of two of the "were to become terrorists"and yasin al-qadi. their money man who
was a co owner of P-TECH(above top secret clearances at :cia,fbi,nsa,faa,secret
service,norad,nro,etc.) and later a donor to the MITT Romney campaign) The clintons and the
democratic elite were right there pretending nothing was happening. And have since pretended
that "the war on freedom",,,,or as they call it "the war on terror" is justified.
whether it was the democratic party or the new york times or la times or washington post of
the weekly standard or fox news or PBS EVERY media powerhouse was on the side of "the big
lie"..
Pathetic logic fails were fed to the american population 24/7/365
The truth be damned and still is
When you have a Democrat do away with Glass-Steagall, who needs Republican villains. Both
totally corrupt parties are beholden to the banks and corporations, and need to be voted out
of office.
Question, is there a statute of limitations for impeachable offenses? Because the Speaker of the House admitted on the public record of implicitly participating
(by her silence) in an orchestrated lie that led to the deaths and maiming of thousands of
American soldiers. Should we be taking that public statement and calling for her impeachment? Can you impeach
the Speaker of the House?
Maybe the Democrats are hoping that once it reaches the Senate, that one of their number
will step up, make a stirring West-Wing style speech which will cause all those present
– Republicans included – to rise to their feet and clap and cheer as they vote
for Trump to be finally kicked out of the White House. Then in their newfound maturity, they
will make Mike Pence the new President of the United States as they work together for a
better country with new respect for each other.
The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert
academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is
Neo-Orwellian.
"Nadler's committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it
considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually
break any laws in his supposed "quid pro quo" dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky, he can still be impeached for his unstated motives.
"The question is not whether the president's conduct could have resulted from
permissible motives. It is whether the president's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the
time, were legitimate, " it stated."
Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him
fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment.
There has been a
vast and irrational response to Trump from day one–perhaps based on the fantasy that
the presidency really is like The West Wing whereas the reality is likely closer to the HBO
comedy Veep. From "now watch this drive" Dubya to Obama and his "propeller heads" our
presidents are a series of vain peacocks with Trump merely the extreme case. Impeach them
all–or none.
This observation by Lambert Strether sums it up: "Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether
to facts, or to law." She is supposedly a professor of law, supposedly advising the Congress
about the process of impeachment. She didn't even try to do her job. One may not agree with
Turley, although the long excerpt brings a broad perspective to what is criminality and to
how much criminality we now consider normal in the U.S. government. To his credit, Turley
marshals facts into a synthesis.
What the Republicans don't seem to get is that will to power isn't all that matters and
that their commitment to economic degradation and looting the citizenry have thrown them into
a crisis (as the paleo-conservatives keep pointing out). Among liberals like Pelosi (and
Karlan), the cluelessness is breathtaking. American liberalism is in a profound crisis, with
Karlan's disquisition being particulary breathtaking for clichés-a-minute, sheer
vulgar thinking, and kitsch.
This is the end. For those of us on the left, and I hesitate to advise non-action, it may
be time simply to let these two rotten structures and ways of thinking collapse. It is like
watching two ghost ships engaged battle, desparately trying to sink one another into a putrid
ocean.
On a lighter (!) note, I will quote Gramsci:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying away and the new cannot
yet be born; during this break in continuity, unhealthy events of every kind are
happening.
La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può
nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati.
I think your last quote hits the nail on the head. It should be painted on every highway
overpass. The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt,
the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact.
I can understand that almost all people crave certainty, but Jesus its time to let it go and
strike out to elsewhere.
An old lawyer adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the
law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law , pound the
table.
Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both
shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a
tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping
today in the IG report.
They had seen enough in SCIFs and elsewhere to know that Team Dem was going to get slammed
due to its supporters in the FBI and DOJ. That much is evident in reviewing the report and
scores of other documents available to the public. What hasn't been made available, like the
Atkinson piece, also provide further support to the Schiff and Nadler accelerants.*
In a way, I almost feel sorry for Rep. Schiff as he was sent on a fool's errand. History
will be unkind to him, among others.
Of greater concern during their proceedings is the absolute lack of regard for the
principles like Due Process established in our US Constitution, and the rule of law.
Then she's a war criminal too! I also remember her saying, "well, we didn't want to ruin
our chances" (in the next election). My fondest wish is that GW Bush, Jr. and the gang who
lied us into the war in Iraq be prosecuted and convicted for war crimes. A somewhat hopeless
wish – that.
She can be surprisingly frank about these things sometimes. She is saying the same thing
in this quote ("people think that that it was the right thing to do" = opposing this would
have cost us votes). I can't understand why anybody would ever trust her again after a
revelation like that.
Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want
to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars including daily
drone-fests a few years ago.
The war drums have been beating on the Ukraine vs Russian for a
few years now. Pelosi is worth over $100,000,000 on mere $200,000 humble public servant
salary, many others on both Team Blue and Team Red similar.
If Team Red Senate votes to
summarily dismiss impeachment it is the tell that there were / are many more cockroaches they
do not want to expose, such as Lindsey Graham, Mitt, McCain, Kerry, not to forget Rummy,
Wolfe, Condi, Cheney, W, O, Hillary, Poppy and so on.
Any 20 somethings in those households
die or maimed "over there"? Let them all hang, dig their corpses up if you have to. Trump
should double-dog dare them all to do it.
I voted for Trump solely as a bull in the china shop, with everything preceding him the
past ~ 40 years as the china shop. Andy Jackson was not on the ballot 3 years ago, so I had
to settle.
I agree that DJT's misdeeds (at least the ones we know about) do not approach those of the
Bush/Cheney presidency (the ones we know about). I wonder what lies beneath the D
determination to impeach. I have been getting emails from various D-oriented organizations asserting that control of
the Senate is within reach for the Ds in 2020, and asking for funds.
Given the near certainty that the Senate will not vote to convict (either through ~20Rs
voting with Ds or ~30Rs simply not voting), perhaps it is hoped that a failure to convict in
the Senate would help Ds make the case for an extra heavy base turnout in 2020 to deliver the
Senate to the Ds.
They can't, or won't, govern. But with control of both houses, they might be able to
impeach and convict.
If the Democratic Party refuses to govern, just why should they be in office? Unless it is
Goldman Sach, Jeff Bezos, and their fellow oligarchs, it is just mendacity masquerading as
seriousness. The Republicans also do not govern, but loot the lower 80% of the population
while dismantling the government.
Just before the Civil War, Republican Party replaced the American Whigs and the Democratic
Party split in two and looked like it too was going away as well. Let's have a clean sweep
this time and maybe prevent another war.
It seemed that the Democrats started out focused on a Trump connection to laundered
Russian money. They didn't like his friendliness toward Putin. The FBI and Mueller went
straight for Manafort and got him cold. It's possible they can't get Trump because he dealt
through DeutscheBank and DB has been protected so far from prosecution.
Every bank in the EU
seems to have laundered Russian money. So to start prosecuting would/will be a total circus.
The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and
Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear.
Schiff started to look like a cornered
animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes
started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And
Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman.
And how impolite of Trump and Rudy to suggest that Joe's doofus son could be up to the same
corruption as daddy. So the fear in the House is visible. I'm thinking there are lotsa
members who might be not just complicit in the coup but complicit having received money for
favors. Or in the case of Browder, helping an international thief and conman with high
connections here and in the UK. High connections usually means political bribes. So Trump
knows where the skeletons are buried imo and it freaks them out beyond any possible just
proceeding. And Nancy's an idiot with a gavel.
Prosecutors seeking justice? On what alien planet do you suppose that might be happening?
Prosecutorial misconduct, caprice, and inconsistency is a hallmark of the US criminal
carcerial system. Our Gulag doesn't just fill itself it needs prosecutors to keep the ball
rolling. Sorta like insurance delivering healthcare.
How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities impeachable?
It's not. The system has broken completely down, although many americans don't know it
yet. The democrats need to back off, although I wouldn't put money on it.
Good to remember the ultimate frame that bounds this Gong Show Trial: "In the long run we
are all dead."
What's going on here seems to me to have the same overall flavor of what's happening in
Britain. Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin.
I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a
soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths
of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned
occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and
spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of
course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get
more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even
that while the play's afoot.
And what good would it doe us to know all the details? What power do American mopes, for
sure, atomized and fearful and befuddled, have to "bend the arc of history toward
justice"?
Well, I think we made a credible effort to bend the arc of history in 1776, and again in
1865. I have little doubt that history will eventually repeat itself, or at least rhyme quite
nicely.
Pence represents a large cohort of Evangelicals who are not averse to using 'direct
action' to advance their causes. Think of the abortion doctors who were shot by 'right wing
nutters,' and the horrific tactics used against women trying to enter and leave abortion
clinics.
One of Pence's strengths is his unswerving adherence to a particular ideology. He has focus,
and that aspect of his character gives him strength and purpose.
Even Napoleon realized the value of the Moral in human affairs.
Also consider groups within the Government and Military aligned with the Evangelical mind
set. Pence has ample resources to manage the job of President.
History shows that relatively small groups of committed and coordinated True Believers can
take over and run governments. Pence is the figurehead for such a group. Beware.
Biden was asked if he would comply if subpoenaed for the Senate trial and he said no. So
Trump is to be impeached for his "crimes" while his potential opponent defies the law and
that's ok because .why was that ok again?.
"However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the
integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair
and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d
209 (1980).
"We have granted discretionary review because a majority of a Court of Appeals panel has
refused to follow a long line of decisions of the highest court of this state in violation of
S.C.R. 1.030(8)(a) which provides:
'The Court of Appeals is bound by and shall follow applicable precedents established in
the opinions of the Supreme Court and its predecessor court.'
The rule is fundamental and is absolutely necessary in a hierarchical judicial system. If
every tier of courts in the judicial hierarchy were free to disregard the decisions of a
higher court, the Court of Appeals could freely disregard the decisions of the Supreme Court,
the circuit courts could freely ignore the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court and our District Courts would be bound by no law at all, free to ignore the decisions
of all higher courts. The result of that course is anarchy." Special Fund v. Francis, 708
S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986).
The above favorable articulations notwithstanding what I've been seeing the past decade,
or so, is something much more akin to "The Rule of Whimsy," with said rule of whimsy having
replaced "The Rule of Law."
I don't think the comparative impeachable offenses argument adds any clarification. The
distinction is that the current proceedings are about potential extortion that impacts the
next election; the impeachable lies and corruption that led to the Iraq war took two years
for the public to perceive. Future versus past. Even if Kerry won in 2004, there would not
have been convictions because the conflict was still in progress. Besides, those that carry
out orders are the ones that get convictions, not the commanders. Oh, and let's not forget
"the fog of war" – a very useful alibi for top military advisers and political
leaders.
I think the problem with the current impeachment mess can be Venn diagrammed. Imagine two
circles. Once circle titled political leverage, the other circle titled extortion. Move the
circles together to partially overlap. Where they overlap is titled Joe Biden. A distinction
can usually be made between political leverage and extortion by asking who the stakeholders
are. Leverage (with military aid) is always going on, and it benefits "regional stability"
and "national security". Extortion benefits the requester, weakens his rivals, creates a
compromising dependency the supplicant. In the overlap area the extorted political smear gets
executed and the goods get delivered. I think the GOP's argument is that as long as the goods
get delivered it is acceptable political leverage. They want to minimize the effect of
smearing Joe Biden on the election. They want to blur the distinction between extortion and
leverage.
Back to future versus past: The current mess may originate with an lack of conflict of
interest oversight during/by the Obama administration by sending Joe Biden and John Kerry to
Ukraine to negotiate anti-corruption deals favorable to the US, knowing that their family
members were involved with Burisma. Surely there were others in the state Department that
could have been direct envoys of the administration. If Burisma wants to stack their board
with influential people and pay them a ridiculous sum for doing nothing – just to
attract investors – well you can chalk that up to corporate stupidity. It's not
necessarily corruption, especially if it works. How many US private equity firms have
high-visibility dead weight board members?
It took me all of one week to connect corruption with the Iraq war, back when it was
beginning. The comparison of past with present is quite useful because it highlights the
injustice that is going on right now. Even if Trump committed impeachable offenses, does not
give the House any moral authority to engage in selective prosecution for the exact same type
of behavior that they themselves, and past presidents have engaged in. This whole circus is
nothing but politics, it certainly isn't about justice, nor doing what is actually good for
the country. Disclaimer: I voted for Jill Stein. Deal with it.
I can only watch small snippets of the "impeachment hearings" before screaming at the TV
like an insane man. Even if one accepts the argument that Trump was using leverage to influence US
election: BIDEN WAS NOT THE NOMINEE !!!!!!!!!!! there were many others vying for the position. How
can you use leverage for personal gain on an event which hasn't and may not occur ?
It only works if he becomes the nominee. Trump was very effective at portraying his
opponents as he wanted during the 2016 campaign ("Crooked Hillary" ) with all the self
inflicted gaffs "Uncle Joe" makes it would seem to be shooting fish in a barrel for Trump in
2020 Why work through Ukraine, when he'd have it so easy destroying him on national TV while
stroking his own ego at the same time
So, in Myanmar, should the Hague not act because it's hands aren't clean? It hasn't acted
against the US, for example, which was a much more dangerous agressor in the ME recently (not
to speak of other cases), and so clearly, the investigation into Myanmar is "merely"
political. Even if investigating the US is impractical, it could investigate smaller
countries that have been involved in that case -- but they haven't, since this is merely
"political".
In fact, following this to the reduction to absurdity, no court ever has clean hands --
everything is corrupt to some extent, self-interested and hypocritical. Do we abandon all
pretense at systems of justice? Or is the case presented here "special" in some sense,
whereby we should look at the goals of the accusers beyond and above the acts and goals of
the accused?
Thank you, Lambert this is a great piece. I haven't been able to follow this impeachment
thing at all. But your final question and answer pulls it together for me.
It doesn't make sense because it really doesn't make sense. Also why now, when we are about to have an election?
I just wish I had the nerve and moral strength to share your post.
The are two answers to the question, "How is lying the country into the Iraq war not
impeachable, and this mass of anodyne trivialities impeachable?"
The optimistic answer is, "Because the former is a matter of statecraft, and the latter is
using official power to derive a direct personal benefit, and the standards for impeachment
based statecraft are much higher." (Congress in rejected Cambodia based articles of
impeachment in 1974)
The cynical answer is, "Because everyone in Washington, DC has sad-sack children who get
jobs because of their political power, and Trump must not be allowed to infringe on our
privilege."
The thing is, BOTH answers are true for different people.
For folks like Pramila Jayapal or AOC, I think that they see this as bribery and an abuse
of office for personal gain. (This group has been calling for impeachment for a while)
For someone like Nancy Pelosi, whose kids have clearly had opportunities as a result of
her position, I think that it is the latter.
How these two categories are split in the Democratic caucus, and there are probably some
in the, "Both," camp, is beyond me.
However, even by a relatively strict interpretation if impeachable offense, we have
obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, obstruction of Congress right now, tax and bank
fraud (though those were done when he was a private citizen), connections to the mob, both
domestic and Russian, witness intimidation, and bribery off the top of my head. (Ignoring
campaign finance violations, because seriously, who cares)
I have always felt the the furor over Russian interference in the election, which was
minor compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the corrupt and
incompetent Democratic Party (mis)leadership, and you will notice that I have not included
any of that, though obviously the cover-up flowed from that in some cases.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege. JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege.
JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
"... If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent. ..."
"... The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president." ..."
"... Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page 165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. " ..."
"... Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries; the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years. ..."
If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald
Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake
when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent.
Contained within Monday's FISA report by the DOJ
Inspector General is the revelation that Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Clinton campaign to
produce the Steele dossier, " was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media. " (
P.
369 and elsewhere)
And when did Steele talk with the media - which got him
fired as an FBI source ? Perhaps most notably was Yahoo News journalist Michael Isikoff ,
who says he was invited by Fusion GPS to meet a
"secret source" at a Washington restaurant . That secret source was none other than
Christopher Steele , who fed Isikoff information from his now-discredited dossier - and which
appeared in a
September 23, 2016 article roughly six weeks before the election - which likely had orders
of magnitude greater visibility and impact coming from a widely-read, MSM source vs. $100,000
in Russian Facebook ads.
The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private
communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of
economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing
to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page
165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified
in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. "
Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in
order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries;
the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And
if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't
plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle
fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election
meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years.
We're sure Hillary can explain that if and when she jumps into the 2020 race.
Schiff behaviour was egregious and as such it is now DemoRats liability...
Goldman finding are all bogus as they can't be compared with crimes on Obama and Clinton family.
Notable quotes:
"... Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. ..."
"... "The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney." ..."
Here's the Democratic position, according to their lawyers...
"The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power" by trying to get
Ukraine to help his prospects for re-election by announcing an investigation into a political
rival, former Vice President Joe Biden," said Barry Berke, counsel to House Judiciary
Democrats.
He and Daniel Goldman, counsel for Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, also cited
numerous instances of the Trump administration withholding documents and other evidence
sought by Congress in connection with the Ukraine probe.
...and the Republican position.
The panel's Republican counsel, Steve Castor, reiterated one of the chief defenses of the
president that's been put forward by Trump allies: "The impeachment inquiry's record is
riddled with hearsay, presumptions and speculation."
He accused Democrats of pursuing an "artificial and arbitrary political deadline" to
overturn the 2016 election and impeach Trump's before the Christmas holiday.
Goldman detailed what he called four "critical" findings from the investigation, according
to Dems. All of these points will likely feature prominently in the articles.
Trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly-elected president of
Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for Trump's personal and political
benefit.
In order to increase the pressure on Ukraine to announce the politically-motivated
investigations that the president wanted, he withheld a coveted Oval Office meeting and $391
million of essential military assistance from Ukraine.
Trump's conduct undermined the U.S. election process and poses an imminent threat to our
national security.
Faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against Ukraine, Trump directed an
unprecedented effort to obstruct Congress' impeachment inquiry into his conduct.
Meanwhile, Republicans insist that the Dems' impeachment drive was a waste of time because
it doesn't show abuse of power.
Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to
impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said
Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25
phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
"The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump
abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president
who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney."
Unfortunately, the impeachment hearing blitz has done little to shift public opinion. Poll
averages compiled by FiveThirtyEight and RealClear Politics show that Americans are evenly
divided with roughly 47% to 48% supporting impeachment and 44% to 45% opposing. Some individual
polls have found that more than eight in ten people say their minds are made up.
Though Nadler says he hasn't yet made a final decision, it looks like evidence from the
Mueller probe will be left out of the articles of impeachment by Democrats (probably not a bad
idea).
They poisoned with the USA with Russophobia for decades to come, and that really increases
the risk of nuclear confrontation, which would wipe out all this jerks, but also mass of innocent
people.
Notable quotes:
"... The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5. Not holding my breath I am afraid. ..."
"... Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better distractions). ..."
Sooner or later you'll have this, IMHO: Reaction time 7 minutes . You know,
decision-making time to say "launch" or not. The decision-maker in the White House, Downing
Street and Elysees Palace either a geriatric or one of this new multiracial breed. Just think
about those people
Add to that the level of overall expertise by the crews manning those systems, its
maintenance etc. Add increased automation of some parts of the launch process with
hardware/software as it's produced now (you know, quality control etc.).
It will take a miracle not to have that launch sooner or later. Not big, say .80 KT. What
happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine, taking the second point from the fourth
paragraph .a big bang.
The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of
their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5.
Not holding my breath I am afraid.
@peterAUS The rational actor false supposition has it that the biologics can't be used
because they don't recognize friend from foe.
Rational actors? Where? Anthrax via the US mail.
One rational actor point of view is that you have to be able to respond to anything.
Anything. In a measured or escalating response. Of course biologics are being actively
pursued to the hilt. Just like you point out about Marburg.
But, the view from above is that general panic in the population cannot be allowed, and so
all biologics have to be down played. "of course we would never do anything like that, it
would be insane to endanger all of humanity". Just like nukes. So professors pontificate
misdirection, and pundits punt.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis. "We only want the fear that results
in more appropriations. Not the fear that sinks programs." Don't generate new Church
commissions. Hence the fine line. some fear yes, other fears, no.
Well Washington D.C.
Hahahahaha sorry, couldn't resist.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis.
I don't.
But I also probably forgot more about nuclear war than most of readers here will ever
know. And chemical, when you think about it; had a kit with atropine on me all the time in
all exercises. We didn't practice much that "biologics" stuff, though. We knew why, then.
Same reason for today. Call it a "stoic option" to own inevitable demise.
Now, there is a big difference between the age of those protests I mentioned and today.
The Internet. The access to information people, then, simply didn't have.
Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real
world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better
distractions).
Well, they will care, I am sure. For about ..say in the USA ..several hours, on
average.
We here where I am typing from will care for "how to survive the aftermath" .. for two
months.Tops.
Appearing on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Maté
said Ukraine's efforts to tamper in the election are "no secret."
"Ukrainian officials -- they leaked information that exposed some apparent corruption by Paul Manafort and it was consequential.
It led to Paul Manafort's resignation
from the Trump campaign," he said. "And, the stated intent of Ukrainian officials was to weaken the Trump campaign because they
wanted to help elect Hillary Clinton ."
Yet, when Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told "Meet The Press" host
Chuck Todd Sunday that reports from various
media outlets indicated that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko favored Clinton over now-President Trump, Todd accused him
of parroting Russian President
Vladimir Putin's talking points.
"Are you at all concerned that you've been duped?" Todd asked.
On the same network, anchor
Nicolle Wallace and her guest The Bulwark Editor-at-Large Charlie Sykes echoed Todd, agreeing that Kennedy "comes off as an addled
Russian asset on television" after "peddling Vladimir Putin's talking points."
"I don't understand the proactive work on behalf of Putin's Kremlin," said Wallace.
Maté told Carlson that what these pundits are trying to do is "conflate that with a different theory by Ukrainian meddling. Which
is not proven -- it's true."
"And, that is the one that Trump tried to put forward in this
phone call with Zelenksy where he appears to be saying that it wasn't Russia that was behind the
hacking of the DNC and that it might have been Ukraine," he continued.
"It's true there's no evidence for that theory, and it's fair enough to point out that. But. what's also ironic here is that the
people who are indignant about that claim by Trump are accepting the claim that Russia hacked the DNC," Maté stated, adding that
journalists should be demanding to see the underlying evidence used by U.S. intelligence to draw that conclusion.
Carlson said the mainstream media now accuses anyone who questions their narrative of being a "traitor to the country" and supporting
Russia. Julia Musto is a reporter for Foxnews.com
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick –a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails – and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
There was no Russian meddling, only Ukraine who meddled in 2016 and they are still at it. Listening to the Judiciary Committee
hearings, it seems that the Russians have hacked into the Republican Party servers and are sending talking points to Republicans
who are defending the indefensible president.
At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves which is better for their party and the country. Slavish devotion to Trump,
or losing an election and leaving Democrats a mess to clean up, as in 1932 and 2008?
Block witnesses from testifying, then say that the hearing is incomplete. Romney told America at the Republican Convention in
2012 that Russia was our biggest enemy, DJT wanted them to help Republicans win in 2016, said he believed Putin in 2018, and wants
to convince us that it was really the Ukraine in 2019. The House has to impeach, even if politically it may be a bad move, because
it is the right thing to do; indeed, the very actions I've seen in the past several weeks has given me glimmers of hope for the
country.
Trump will be reelected for the reason that the Russian intelligence agencies are still able to hack our election results, because
Trump has blocked fixing the weaknesses. That is what happens when a Manchurian candidate is elected and then allowed to obstruct
justice. It is not clear the US will survive Trump. One key thing he did was arrange to have the teams at DHS that watch for smuggled
nuclear bombs were stood down and disbanded. See the report in the LA Times last July "Trump administration has gutted programs
aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction".
I don't suppose a constructed transcript of Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow will be offered up as
a token of our leader's transparency.
It's clear now that AG William Barr isn't interested in enforcing the rule of law with fellow republicans, and especially the
president. How can there be no recourse when an attorney general completely sells out to a criminal president? Can the employees
of the Justice Dept hold a vote of no confidence in the AG? Can 10,000 attorneys nationwide express the same? The prospect of
Trump and Barr running roughshod over the rule of law for another year is truly frightening.
65,845,063 voters knew clearly who this man was from the beginning and voted for what would have been a better now and future.
It was never any secret. 62,980,160 voters also knew clearly who this man was and voted for him anyway. If the Democrats can ensure
that we have a fair election in 2020. I'm confident they will win the majority in the house and senate and retake the White House
and the end game for Trump will be jail. The problem is, he might not be the only one who's crimes come to light and I suspect
a good lot of the GOP are threatening and blackmailing each other to hold the line. If there's any good men or women left in the
GOP, your country and history are calling you.
It has easy to predict Trump's next move for the last 3 years. Just ask, "What would both benefit Trump, and benefit Putin?" Trump
supporters = Putin supporters.
Do you know the American people are fed up with the discourse of all politicians. The republicans are fed up with any decency
for the republic. The democrats are fed up with the republicans not facing the common sense of a exec not capable of being the
President of the United states. I as a person am fed up with a political system that is not working for all people, just a select
few. It's time too have term limits for all positions in gov't. That means all people that serve the people whether it be judges,
senators or congressmen/women. It's time to find common sense again in our society as a whole society. We on this earth are all
HUMAN.
Unfortunately their are serious problems with term limits. Just consider yourself in the role of a Congressional Representative
limited to 4 terms. You know that in 8 years, you'll be be back on the job market. You can selflessly work for the public and
damage your ability to get a job or tend to people who can hire you after you leave office. You're rational. Which future would
you pick?
Trump needs to keep Putin happy lest he unleash with all the damaging info he has collected on Trump and his financial crooked
deals with Russians over decades. THe Russian mob reports to Putin as a former KGB agent he knows how to collect compromat on
a politician and how to use it to get Trump to break into a giddy smile when he sees Putin his master it's obvious to most keen
observers.
Folks it is simple. Can we hear what Trump and Putin said to each other a few months ago. It is recored and on a server it should
not be on. I am not sure why nobody is talking about these transcripts.
Finally! We get someone stating the obvious fact of Trump/Putin. Why are the Dems not talking about this all the time? Why are
Congressmen and women not asking the witnesses about this? This is the ONE thing the Republicans are afraid of, so it is the one
thing Democrats should do. I have been disappointed that the Russian asset thing hasn't been brought up....It's as if it is purposely
bold. Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. I doubt if there is one upper Intelligence Official that wouldn't
say this. So find the right one and have them sit as a witness for this inquiry. And now the Russian big wig Diplomat and KGb
spy, Lavarov, is visiting tomorrow. Good grief! Everyone is thinking this, so get out and say it Dems! Dr. Fiona Hill tried to
lead into this direction but still the Dem Committee would take it up and aske her what she thought. Say it: All of Trump's Roads
Lead to Russia.
Any American adult who has made an effort to educate himself or herself about Mr. Mueller's investigation or these impeachment
proceedings understands that yes, with Trump all roads lead to Russia. Now if the poll numbers mean anything, Trump's crimes and
Russia's involvement only matter to about 60% of us. As Trump's poll numbers remain steady, some 40% of Americans don't care what
lawbreaking he is involved with or whether other nations now control our elections. Stop and think about this for a minute. Trump
supporters know but literally do not care that Russia is tampering with our elections (2016 and 2020). Their cult-like support
for Trump is why the Republican Senate will not remove him. There is no other reason Trump will remain in office. Trump has mesmerized
his supporters like a modern day Rasputin. They will do literally anything for him, and Senate Republicans know this. Trump voters
do not mind that Putin controls our nation at the highest levels of decision making. Again - think about this - they know he does,
and they do not care. So I ask the rest of us. Is this the America we want to live in? To raise our families in? Where a large,
rabid minority is in thrall to a lunatic puppet whose strings are firmly in Putin's hands? Because this is very much the America
we live in now. The time will come, though, when we, the majority, will no longer tolerate the Trump/Putin regime. But the longer
we wait, the harder it will be oust these tyrants.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Russia was an important source of funding for the Trump businesses. American banks wouldn't lend
him money. Saudi Arabia likely bailed out Jared's disastrous real estate investment in NYC. Follow. The. Money.
You say that Mr. Putin "has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices by faithfully parroting
Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press." You are correct on all counts, except that the Republicans have not been fooled
by Putin. They have gone along, headlong and absolutely willingly, in a complete sellout of personal and national principle and
integrity. They should not be forgiven for this conduct, any more than Mr. Trump should be forgiven for his sellout of America.
For Republicans who believe so fervently in their counterfactual narrative, there is an immediate remedy. Bring facts and evidence
to the Committees and testify under oath. Without witnesses and evidence presented under oath, all of the GOP antics simply look
foolish and very much like they are defending the guilty. It is unfortunate that there is no penalty for elected officials who
share unfounded conspiracy theories, engage in innuendo and obstruct process in official Committee hearings. It is also regretable
that this President is not held accountable for trying to intimidate witnesses in real time during testimony. And it is a sad
reality that one of the most corrupt rulers in the world, who rules a hostile power, has managed to entirely win over one of our
major parties.
The strangest defense advanced today was the idea that the alleged state of the economy was reason not to impeach the President:
the Republicans assert that America, the Constitution, the principle of our government are for sale to be bought by the rising
stock market and a plethora of low-wage jobs. We are Faust, and the smell of sulphur is nauseating.
If the IG's report on the 2016 Russia investigation had found the only problem was that two of the agents involved had horrible
hangnails, Barr and Trump would have condemned it.
Whatever Trump is doing, he always care about his main benefactors, Putin and MBS. This is the first time I have witnessed in
history that an American president became a Russian puppet with all his Republican followers at the Congress and Senate. American
constitutional crisis happening right in front of the world. I heard the cries of James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin
from their graves.
Sir, do you honestly think that House Republicans have been "fooled" by Mr. Putin? On the contrary, it's pretty obvious they understand
and believe the conclusions from our Intel community. These are instead willful lies for political gain. And while some Americans
may actually be misled by the theater presented as rebuttal to the impeachment, it's hard to imagine for most it's once again,
not conviction but convenience that places such "patriots" solidly in Russia's back pocket.
The pattern of behavior is clear and compelling: Trump is selling out this country, its national security, its integrity and sovereignty,
in order to keep power and avoid his own prosecution, and protect his financial interests. We must get the truth about his relationships
and indebtedness to Putin, the Saudis, and Erdogan. Our country has been hijacked and Trump will continue to corrupt the US and
turn it into an autocracy if he is not stopped and held accountable under the law.
The country voted for this President knowing he is a flawed man in many ways. I don't think anything changes here - the Senate
will speedily acquit him and the voters in the swing states will have to decide if they want to give Mr. Trump a second chance
while the rest of the country impotently watches.
If one looks at all of his actions as "How could this benefit Russia?" most of it makes sense. Why start a trade war with China
and Western allies? Why withdraw from Syria? Why try to polarize the American public? Effectively showing this to the public is
critical.
Excellent piece. We all know Trump, Inc. turned to Russian oligarchs after '08 for condo sales. It just so happened that those
same oligarchs (read as kleptocrats) were laundering money through Deutsche Bank, who was the only bank willing to lend to Trump.
Trump's loan officer amazingly was SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's son. Trump was and is a desperate man in need of cash/ Putin is
a desperate man who knows that the geyser of oil money that funds his national budget, and has done so since the 1920's, is coming
to an end. Russia has no large material economic exports other than oil and gas, but it does still have a large military, hence
the military incursions into Moldova, Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. Desperate men do desperate things, and desperately
try to project power with weak hands.
The Republicans in Congress were not fooled by the Russians. They believe in Trump no matter what the Russians do. The bottom
line is - What does Putin have on Trump
I don't understand why there hasn't been more of a pushback by the military. They went heavily for Trump in 20116, with many bases
in the South and many recruits from economically devastated areas, but in the interim, they have seen his reckless, lurching foreign
policy, worship of Putin, and clear evidence that somehow everything he does benefits Russia. A commander's first obligation is
to their troops, so knowing the man in charge considers their lives subject to both Trump's whims, and Putin's whispers should
provoke some reaction. No?
Unfortunately - to put it mildly - impeachment will have no effect on the conduct of the 2020 election. The wheels are already
turning, everyone knows their part, and only a massive commitment by an honest intelligence apparatus (if there is one) can stop
it. One can only hope that, in 2020, the American people make a statement so overwhelming that there can be no doubt as to their
intent, despite whatever meddling there may have been. It is entirely possible that there will never be a truly credible election
again as long as there are bad actors who are power hungry or bent on destabilizing democratic governments. And make no mistake,
these threats are coming from right wing autocracies, and they are in the ascendancy all over the world. American centrists and
liberals are the only force that can change that. Are those stakes big enough for you?
We may finally have the answer as to why Trump is so accommodating to Putin. Trump has so many investments in Russia dependent
on Putin's support. Trump financial reports will reveal this collusion between Trump and Putin. This should not come as a surprise
to attentive Americans. Think of the worst an American president can do and that will bring you close to understanding Trump.
Nobody's saying how Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine would benefit Putin and Russia in their WAR against Ukraine. It
was, indeed, MILITARY aid he was withholding, was it not? I understand that this is not the impeachable offense of attempting
to enlist a foreign government to win an election, but I believe this aspect of the situation should be brought out.
The Republican Party has been officially reduced to a giant miasma of fraud, fiction, fantasy, conspiracy theory, deflection,
misdirection and prevarication. After tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations...the GOP has no other public policy ideas
(except for bankrupting the government). A civilized country needs little things like infrastructure, education, technology, voting
rights, law and order, regulations, fair taxation and facts to move forward. But none of those things are ever mentioned by the
Republican Party; conspiracy-mongering and tax cuts are now the official governing planks of the Grand Old Propaganda/Grand One
Percent party. This is no way to manage a nation anywhere except into the ground. Americans need to hit the Trump-GOP eject button
before these Lord of the Fly Republicans take us over a very steep right-wing cliff of insanity.
The Republican Party is now Trump's party and the Republicans know it and are acting accordingly. You could call them opportunists
following the way the political winds are blowing. The Constitution is based on members of Congress caring about the Constitution
and searching for the truth. Since this is now not the case when if comes to the Republicans the Constitution has no remedy for
this situation. The only remedy is an election and if Trump can manipulate elections to his advantage using foreign powers then
there is no remedy and the system of government set up by the founders will be no more. The new system replacing it will be controlled
by Trump. Putin figured out how to control Russian elections so he always wins and it is likely that Trump has a goal of imitating
Putin. Ultimately this would mean taking over the press as Putin did. Trump cannot declare total victory as long as the there
is a free press which he has labeled the enemy of the people.
From an acute perspective ..indeed shocking to say the least of the nature of this peculiar relationship. But looking at the big
picture as evidence by all that has occurred in his or during this eye opening period for all the world to see....not so much
so...For me, this dynamic is much expected.
"The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country, and those
words should be stricken from the record and taken down," Mr. Johnson said. The Johnson rule effectively reads the impeachment
power out of the constitution. How can you impeach a president if no one can say anything bad about him/her?
We have yet to plow the most fertile road yet. What does Trump care about over all else? Trump. How does Trump gauge his progress?
His money. Where does his money come from? Good question. We all know he has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. We all know that because
of those bankruptcies, American banks will not loan him any money. We all know he has significant financial dealings with Deutsche
Bank. Now, who put the money in Deutsche Bank that ended up financing Trump's business.? That is the two billion dollar question.
We also know that Russian oligarchs deal in billions of dollars. We also know that Trump has close relations with Russian business
interests. We also know that Trump kowtows to Putin like Pence kowtows to him. We also know that Trump is doing everything possible
to conceal his financial dealings from everyone and everything. So, we know that one billion plus one billion equals two billion.
But does it also equal Trump? This money road is one we should take a ride on. Will it also take us to Putin?
The first Democratic candidate who labels Trump a "Russian agent" will own the simplest and most effective tag line going into
the general election, provided of course that that candidate does his best to channel his inner Trump by never backing down but
instead doubling down every chance he or she gets. Is Trump a Russian agent, paid for and accounted for? Not easy to say without
some doubt, but that doesn't really matter because he sure as shoottin' acts like one. And when have the facts ever stopped Trump
from going on the attack? The more Trump denies the label, the more he'll be digging his own grave. The real crime here is not
so much the strong arming of Zelenskyy for a Biden investigation. That's small potatoes compared to Trump's withholding congressionally
designated US military aid from a country engaged in a hot war with Russia, the same cast of characters who starved anywhere from
one to eleven million Ukrainians during the 1930's. The Russian agent must go.
I would not say Trump's lying "is effective", I would say it "has been effective". At some point, the public and his party may
have had it with the thuggery and we do not know when that breaking point is.
For the sake of protecting our 2020 elections from Russian hackers and disinformation, the House is justified in moving forward
fast, over the process howls of Republicans, with the compelling evidence they have surrounding Ukraine. But they need to continue
investigating his business and financial ties to Russia and any other autocratic governments and their oligarchs, e.g. Turkey
and Saudi Arabia. Especially if he is not convicted and removed by the Senate and stands for re-election, Americans need to know
what conflicts of interest he has in making foreign policy and military decisions because American soldiers' lives are at stake.
The Mueller investigation did not go down that road. Any businessman with global interests is automatically compromised, even
more than a vice president whose son sits on a foreign corporation's board of director. Trump's own children continue to do business
in foreign countries and we have no idea what Ivanka and Jared, sitting in the White House with top security clearances, are doing.
In short, Ukraine should not be the only concern of congressional oversight committees. There's a lot more.
Trump must believe that Russian help in 2016 did help him to win. He must feel that fake evidence presented by an "independent"
investigator such as a foreign government appears to carry more weight that the same fake evidence from a partisan investigator.
Otherwise why would he be taking such chances to duplicate via Ukraine what he got from the Russians in 2016. But now that the
Russian connection is outed, he can't go back to that well.
I worry it's all for naught. Dems in the House vote to impeach, GOP in the Senate vote to acquit. Trump remains highly competitive
in 2020 election, Russia and other adversaries interfere, Trump stays put. Then what?
@NA Wilson Think of this situation differently. To have all possible scope to defeat him, we must support everything we can to
undermine him. Lack of impeachment would have been business as usual. At some point his finances will get out and then all bets
are off.
@NA Wilson: It's all Hands on deck to save the country. Don't just vote, donate what money you can, work for candidates, knock
doors, make calls. It's the only way out of this nightmare.
The Impeachment hearings weren't really necessary to prove what most everyone who's been paying attention knows. With Trump, all
roads lead to Moscow. In fact, he's already acting very Putin-esque in his own way by forbidding anyone in the White House to
respond to subpoena, by installing the fear of God in those who do, by punishing anyone who dares to think or act on their own,
and then there's the act of holding a foreign country ransom until they agree to do his bidding -- not to mention inviting outside
interference in our presidential elections. All the signs are not only there but they are ominous. By holding himself above the
U.S. Constitution, Trump has declared war on this country and all the laws that govern it. And while entertainment-starved Americans
laugh and cheer at his rallies, he and the Republicans drain our right to vote, and with it our Democracy. Today wasn't an epiphany.
It was a warning.
There seems to be no discussion of the financial backing trump received after '08-09 from sources inside Russia and how these
actors would have expressed their support (or conditions for their silence) to the trump campaign during '15-16. Did the FBI not
identify and investigate the funders behind trump and their interactions with the campaign during 2016? Would this not have been
reasonable for an investigation to look into when its entire raison d'etre was to detect sources of Russian influence?
I wonder if Mr. Wegman believes that this editorial will change anyone's mind or influence how anyone votes in the upcoming presidential
election. Basically, this is classic preaching to the choir and sadly mostly a wasted effort. I would like to read articles with
proven ideas that worked to change the minds of Republicans and other like them. Such articles might give me some better ideas
to convince my pro-Trump friends and neighbors to Vote for America next November.
"When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected." This! This is the central fact of all the things Trump has
done (so far), and yet, the Democrats have failed to make this the central focus of the case against him. Instead, they've focused
on one incident, and not even the most egregious one, to justify impeachment and removal from office. This was a terrible miscalculation.
No, there is no doubt that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine into helping with his re-election by announcing a bogus investigation
of the Bidens. Nor any doubt that this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors". But this was not the highest of crimes he's
committed, nor have the Dems been able to convince any Republicans, or many independents, that this deserves Trump's removal.
Moreover, they failed to produce the "smoking gun" of one witness or document in Trump's own words directing the quid pro quo.
They gave plenty of room for the Republican attack machine to cast enough doubt and confusion that all but ensures Trump's acquittal
in the Senate. Instead of focusing only on this one incident, the Democrats should have built their case around the theme that
"with Trump, all roads lead to Russia". That is a crime that even the most skeptical doubter can grasp, and when linked together,
all of his crimes can be shown to be of a pattern of serving Putin, and not the people of the United States. All roads lead to
Putin, but the Democrats chose to follow a dead end.
@Kingfish52 I completely agree with you and truly don't understand why the Democrats have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
For mercy's sake! The problem is not just that the president solicited help from a foreign power for his own personal gain! That's
bad enough, but isn't the point that he did this because he is beholden to Russia? Russia. is. not. our. friend. Why aren't the
Democrats explaining this clearly to the American people? Trump is Putin's puppet and it could not be more obvious! Don't people
understand that it doesn't just happen to be Ukraine that Trump took a notion to squeeze for his "personal gain"? He doesn't just
want to win because it is so nice to win elections. He has to do what Putin tells him. Obviously, every last Republican in Congress
understands this clearly. Why can't the Democrats explain it to the American people clearly?
Obama did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, after the Russians invaded Crimea. Obama did not Russia prevent the Iranian nuclear
deal. Trump cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal, then provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Now I get it. Trump is working for Putin.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75
million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the
Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. Trump appears
to be echoing a critique leveled at the Obama administration by the late Republican Sen. John McCain. "The Ukrainians are being
slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," McCain said in 2015. "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." While
it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military.
Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many
of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank
missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
@Mike Trump was not the one providing lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the house and senate that proposed and forced this aid into
an appropriation bill - against the wishes of the Trump administration. After Trump realized he could not block this funding he
did the second best thing - he used it to blackmail the Ukraine government to provide him with dirt on Biden and support for Putin's
favorite narrative (that it was Ukraine not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election).
@Mike It also took two acts of Congress to get the aid to Ukraine. Trump had nothing to do with it. Only the Impound Inclusion
Act for foreign aid allows the President to time the release of the funds, which Trump did not follow. The Act was created because
Nixon, like Trump, was playing fast and loose with our tax dollars. Who was the last President who asked for help from a foreign
intelligence agency? Which President favored foregn intelligence agencies over his own? Answer no one other than Trump. If that
doesn't show he's in someone's pocket, nothing does.
The idea that Trump wanted to derail Biden is very weak. Biden is optimal opponent for Trump.
He can just wipe floor with him because of his long recoprd in Congress and dirty deals he was
involved, including Burisma.
Notable quotes:
"... It's funny because 3 out of 4 of those people screaming "Framers" had frames on.. so is it the framed trying to frame the framers or is it the presidents framers framing the framed..wait a minute!.. uhhmm ..."
"... Professor Karlan I believe has tanked her career ..."
It's funny because 3 out of 4 of those people screaming "Framers" had frames on.. so is it
the framed trying to frame the framers or is it the presidents framers framing the
framed..wait a minute!.. uhhmm
What I see is copious amounts of wailing from the usual sources about the demise of what
was supposed to be an era of Unipolar dominance by the Evil Outlaw US Empire and blame being
thrown in all directions hoping some sticks instead of directing it at themselves for they
are he true authors of the Empire's decline--they being the Current Oligarchy and their
Congressional, Administrative, and BigLie Media accomplices. The Empire's current "defense"
doctrine calls for war to be waged against the nation(s) impeding the Empire's unilateralism.
The brats are spoilt beyond belief and 100% believe they're entitled to having Full
Spectrum Dominance because of their exceptionalist ideology--they've destroyed their own
basic law to attain that goal; the impeachment derangement is just the most overt symptom
being shown at the moment. Just look at the unanimity on the two recent anti-China
votes--Congress is in almost 100% lockstep with Marco Rubio's insanity.
IMO, there were saner heads in 1962 than now, particularly in Congress. What's worse than
an Evil Outlaw US Empire is it's becoming deranged.
"... Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under the guise of NATO as well. ..."
"... "Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for some reason ." ..."
"... NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in search of new official enemies. ..."
"... I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces. ..."
"... What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO. ..."
"... Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this. ..."
"... LOL. The NATO ONLY serves US interests. It has the same function as always. Keep the US in, Russia out and Germany down. ..."
"... The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon the myth of American exceptionalism. ..."
"... US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed. ..."
"... Technocratic sociopaths, doing a CYA for their incompetence. ..."
"... ZATO cries out in pain as it strikes you. ..."
NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov by
Tyler Durden Mon,
12/09/2019 - 02:45 0 SHARES
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has charged NATO with wanting to "dominate the world"
a day after 70th anniversary events of the alliance concluded in London.
"We absolutely understand that NATO wants to dominate the world and wants to eliminate any
competitors, including resorting to an information war, trying to unbalance us and China,"
Lavrov said from Bratislava,
the capital of Slovakia, while attending the 26th Ministerial Council of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
He seized upon NATO leaders' comments this week, specifically Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, naming China as a new enemy alongside Russia . Stoltenberg declared
at the summit that NATO has to "tackle the issue" of China's growing
capabilities.
Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We
are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is
multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under
the guise of NATO as well.
The new accusation of 'world domination'
comes at a crisis moment of growing and deep divisions over the future of the Cold War era
military alliance, including back-and-forth comments on Macron's "brain death" remarks, and
looming questions over Turkey's fitness to remain in NATO, and the ongoing debate over cost
sharing burdens and the scope of the mission.
"Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov
stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position
to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for
some reason ."
A consistent theme of Lavrov's has been
to call for a "post-West world order" but that NATO has "remained a Cold War institution"
hindering balance in global relations where countries can pursue their own national
interests.
NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in
search of new official enemies.
Remember the last Bilderberg meeting. Russia and China were not invited. The globalists
have planned this, and apparently, Russia has better intelligence to know what's going on,
and they will take the necessary precautions, along with China. Let's just hope it's not
going to lead us to WW3.
I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces.
NATO is not trying to dominate, NATO is trying to extend its profit from frightened
European donkeys who still believe that the USSR exists, and Uncle Joe sits in the Kremlin
and eats a Christian baby in garlic sauce for lunch.
What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but
the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO.
So there will
be a big "raspathosovka" with shooting and explosions, do not even doubt it.. Only the problem of
Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same
Americans and NATO. So there will be a big **** with shooting and explosions, do not even
doubt it.
I'll just repeat the erased: NATO - lovers of freebies and they don't refuse this
freebie voluntarily. Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a
made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this.
NATO is obsolete. The organization no longer serves US interests, and quite frankly,
hasn't for some time. I respectfully suggest the USA move all forces out of Germany on day 1, and station them
at Fort Trump in Poland.
Day 2, the US forms a new "mutual defense pact" with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
(Former Eastern Bloc nations)
Russia and Germany can duke it out, just not where our guys are hanging out. Hades,
Germany and France can limp wrist at each other as they have done in the past so many
times. But insofar as US troops leaving continental Europe forever? Sorry Sergei, that ain't happening, no matter how much
propaganda you shove up western
europe's (willing) ***.
Meanwhile Vlad makes new friends around the world... Last year Putin signed accords with President Macri of Argentina which included Russia
recognizing Argentina's Falklands claim. (La Voz, 23 Jan 2018).
An Argentinian claim based upon 'usurpation' – meaningless in the 18th century and
inheritance from Spain just like Mexico inherited California and Texas.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety. As it stands, I am not
excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing. People have been predicting that for
a while and for the moment, I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate. The
US is a crooked gangster, but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big
league.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety.
The NATO disadvantage right now is of the "sitting with pants full of **** and asking
others who farted" variety.
As it stands, I am not excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing.
The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it
because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the
US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon
the myth of American exceptionalism.
I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate.
US imperial decline is reminiscent of Casey at the Bat.
but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big league.
Or they've decided the US game is not worth playing.
Since 2013 I have followed Russian foreign policy and actions in the middle east and
elsewhere,thanks to statesmen like Lavrov they have crossed every t and dotted every i
following international law and convention, true history will be a lot kinder to Russia than
N ot A nother T errorist O rganisation
What is happening to Europe is the same as what's happening to Russia, only Russia
didn't ask for it. Nevertheless, Azeris and Tatars are on the rise demographically, and
Russians are on the decline.
I don't think Russia ... or China for that matter ... need to worry much. The West is imploding and NATO will implode along with it. The West can't even depend on its technical superiority anymore ( see Boeing 737MAX
); it sure can't depend on (most of) its people to do any real fighting.
NATO is fading and becoming a contradictory mess. China and Russia will be the foe, with possibly India, and far more effective,
economically and militarily. Europe doesn't stand a chance against these no matter how they posture, their slope is
downward.
US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed.
"The problem is ZATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only ZATO is in the
position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West
dislikes for some reason ."
A long time ago I watched "Manufacturing Consent" and have since assumed that what passes
for mainstream "news" is nothing more than propaganda, and that Mark Twain was entirely
correct in his observation that if you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do
read the newspaper you are misinformed. Though it is sad when I see the likes of the once
great Nature engage in such, all things must pass and I am sure they will too, most of what I
read these days comes straight off arxiv.org so they have already been disintermediated in my
life.
@32 c1ue
That will be £1,000,000 for linking to my post, please pay within 24 hours or legal
action will be taken!
"... there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized ..."
"... This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences, like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day. ..."
"... Another rapidly creeping Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become common coin ..."
"... increasingly they have that "enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch. ..."
There is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly
Sovietized, writes Weir .
This is becoming quite the meme. Upon reflection, I do think there is something in it. Not
this idiotic suggestion that Repubicans have somehow morphed into borscht-swilling,
shapka-wearing, Putin-loving Russkies. Indeed, there are hardly any actual Russians like that.
But there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized. Of course it's two separate camps, not a monolith, and the Democrats are at least
as guilty as Republicans.
This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences,
like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day.
Russians scoff at the idea that Putin is able to get his own man elected president of the US
when he can't even fix the governor in Irkutsk. But the author of this piece implies that Putin
is somehow pulling the strings, not only of Trump but all Republicans?
Another rapidly creeping
Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential
struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become
common coin. And they are not just deployed as simple insults: increasingly they have that
"enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in
political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch.
Also, it looks like big part of the media have become almost Pravda-like, making ideological
mission their main priority. I spend some of my down-time perusing shows from Fox News and
MSNBC, which an alien from outer space would think were the propaganda organs of two different,
mutually-hostile states -- but both very Soviet-like.
... ... ...
THEATLANTIC.COM
The Russification of the Republican Party
GOP lawmakers used to oppose the president's embrace of Putin and the Kremlin. Not anymore.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/impeachment-republican-party-russia/603088/?fbclid=IwAR1EC0-CDBEx-3SMS1lJTMT2m0xVjfaguZehK4BIeZ5Bov41Ds1XFi_Cbkg
"... I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq. As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense. ..."
"... He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign. ..."
"... When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress. ..."
"... Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over. ..."
Enthusiasm over entrepreneurship is now found in every corner of society -- even, apparently, within the federal bureaucracy.
Witness after witness in last month's House impeachment inquiry hearings referred to "the interagency," an off-the-books informal
government organization that we now know has enormous power to set and execute American foreign policy.
The first to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, State Department official George Kent, seemed to conceive of the
interagency as the definitive source of foreign-policy consensus. That Mr. Trump's alleged decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine
deviated from that consensus was, for Mr. Kent, prima facie evidence that it was misguided.
Next up, Ambassador William Taylor told the committee that it was the "unanimous opinion of every level of interagency discussion"
that the aid should be resumed without delay. Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, gave the game away by admitting
how upset she was that Gordon Sondland, President Trump's ambassador to the European Union, had established an "alternative" approach
to helping Kyiv. "We have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine," she said.
What is the interagency, and why should its views guide the conduct of American diplomatic and national-security professionals?
The Constitution grants the president the power to set defense and diplomatic policy. Where did this interagency come from?
I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq.
As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was
executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense.
He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that
the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new
hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong
engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign.
Interagency cooperative agreements have been around for decades. The Justice Department, for example, has opioid-interdiction
programs that require it to work with the Department of Homeland Security. Today a dictionary of more than 12,500 official terms
exists to guide bureaucrats in writing interagency contracts that repurpose federal funds appropriated to various executive departments.
Often these interdepartmental initiatives devised by bureaucrats are unknown to Congress. It's hard to imagine that the legislative
branch wouldn't object to these arrangements, if only it were aware of them.
When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military
and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the
Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine
and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress.
Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government
credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of
how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who
probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that
Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over.
The impeachment hearings will have served a useful purpose if all they do is demonstrate that a cabal of unelected officials are
fashioning profound aspects of U.S. foreign policy on their own motion. No statutes anticipate that the president or Congress will
delegate such authority to a secret working group formed largely at the initiation of entrepreneurial bureaucrats, notwithstanding
that they may be area experts, experienced in diplomatic and military affairs, and motivated by what they see as the best interests
of the country.
However the impeachment drama plays out, Congress has cause to enact comprehensive legislation akin to the Goldwater-Nichols Act
of 1986, which created more-efficient structures and transparent processes in the Defense Department. Americans deserve to know who
really is responsible for making the nation's foreign policy. The interagency, if it is to exist, should have a chairman appointed
by the president, and its decisions, much like the once-secret minutes of the Federal Reserve, should be published, with limited
and necessary exceptions, for all to see.
Mr. Schramm is a university professor at Syracuse. His most recent book is "Burn the Business Plan."
"A botched assassination attempt against Ukrainian politician and businessman Vyacheslav
Sobolev has resulted in the death of his three-year-old son, Alexander.
"While Sobolev and his wife were leaving his high-end restaurant "Mario" in Kiev this past
Sunday, right-wing thugs opened fire on Sobolev's Range Rover, missing him but hitting his
son who was seated in the back of the vehicle. The three-year-old died on the way to the
hospital.
"Police later apprehended two men who had fled the scene in a black Lexus sedan, Oleksiy
Semenov, 19, and Andrei Lavrega, 20. Both are veterans of the war in Donbass in eastern
Ukraine where they served as members of the fascist Right Sector's paramilitary formation
until June of this year.
"The Right Sector was instrumental in the US- and EU-backed, fascist-led coup in February
2014 that toppled the Yanukovitch government and replaced it with a pro-Western and
anti-Russian regime. Since then, the Right Sector has been among the far-right forces that
have been heavily involved in the war against Russian-backed separatists in East Ukraine.
"As is usual when members of neo-Nazi groups carry out political attacks, the Right Sector
and their former battalion commander fraudulently attempted to distance themselves from
Lavrega and Semenov, claiming they had lost contact with them since they left Ukraine's armed
forces in June. These claims are not credible.
"Lavrega, who has been identified as the principal shooter in the killing, has been a
member of the Right Sector for at least half a decade. He had participated in the Maidan
movement of 2014 as a member of the Right Sector and perfected his shooting skills as a
sniper killing separatist soldiers in eastern Ukraine. According to his Right Sector
battalion commander, Andrei Herhert, Lavrega -- also known as "Quiet" -- was "one of the best
snipers in the war" and "very ideological."
"As a thanks for his service to the right-wing Kiev government, Lavrega received a
military decoration from former President Petro Poroshenko for "courage" just last year, in
October of 2018." ..........
"Whoever is ultimately responsible for ordering this political assassination and the
murder of the three-year-old boy, it is clear that the same far-right forces that were
instrumental in the coup in February 2014 and the civil war are now being employed to carry
out political assassinations by the Ukrainian oligarchy.
"Since the 2014 coup, the number of targeted political assassinations by right-wing
neo-Nazi groups like C14 and the Right Sector has skyrocketed. At least 15 people have been
murdered in such hit jobs by the far right since 2014. Among them was the well-known
Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet and the politician Kateryna Handziuk, who was killed in
a horrific acid attack by right-wing thugs last year.
"In virtually all these cases, the perpetrators have been protected from serious legal
prosecution. One of the murderers of Handziuk received a barely three-year prison sentence. A
critical role in shielding the neo-Nazis is played by Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs'
Arsen Avakov, who controls the country's police force and possesses well-known ties to
Ukraine's most notorious fascist militia, the Azov Battalion.
"Avakov is one of the few members of the previous Poroshenko government that have remained
in the current Cabinet of Ministers under President Volodmyr Zelensky. He was recently
praised by former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch while testifying before the
House of Representatives regarding the Trump impeachment investigation (see also: "The
impeachment crisis and American imperialism").
"President Zelensky, who was elected in April this year on the basis of promises that he
would bring an end to the widely despised civil war in eastern Ukraine that has claimed the
lives of over 13,000 people, has maintained a conspicuous silence on this latest political
assassination attempt by the far right. Instead, the day after the murder, he posted a
message on Facebook to honor two Ukrainian soldiers who were killed while fighting in eastern
Ukraine this past weekend."
The rest of the story can be found at the WSWS https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/07/ukra-d06.html
The Right Sector links with the former US Ambassador-Democratic heroine- are topical.
Thank you for that insight. I cannot see how Zelensky will manage the Nazi Ukrainians
short of a virtual civil war against one western district. The USA will foment a major
insurrection to destroy him if he does a deal with Gazprom. Your suggestion as to where those
issues are discussed would be welcome.
A User #72
Thank you and well said. The eurocentric kabuki does mesmerise the information providers.
I too seek escape from that dominance and spent a good time today researching the Power of
Siberia implications and issues of South America. The global assault on all things African is
a matter of deep despair for me and I feel totally powerless to reverse the relentless
assault on their world.
"... The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders and Russiagate. ..."
"... Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured. ..."
"... It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is. ..."
"... Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency). ..."
"... Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing. ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... "From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global domination. " ..."
"... "At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign
Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily determined to undermine Russia. A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had
to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow
celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on
Russia," Kevin says in his conversation with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion
eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against
Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium
News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan.
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive
state of affairs deserve the widest possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed.
Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further
we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer we come to its revival.
Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States.
It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first.
Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world
war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence
doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation
is.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been,
are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK
wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the
upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be
untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase Russophobia) sort – about Russian
hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour
Party's source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally
destroy the NHS and replace it with (of course) US "health" insurance company
profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity
among many Tory party supporters among the working and lower middle classes prevented them
from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the undermining, via
installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds
that would otherwise have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money
– a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally conceived and
constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov
(Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in
France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of
western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the
Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny
them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the
neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the
Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what
I've read the man is the most diplomatic and intelligent politician (not just political
leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world stage. None
of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries.
Unlike their western "world" political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they
agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated
and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked
well. We're trying to do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it
is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that doesn't. SIPIRI tags US military
spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the
energy department or our veteran's expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing
from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better than we can sustain
our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there
was NEVER a surrender, intended in any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships.
For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live and work in peace.
(By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear
as never before, a mad man throwing a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on
trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence
universally consulted), allowing the light in for the mass of the viewing and listening
public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as
the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK
obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who
is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian
citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a
nation which has been started by killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their
country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
Words are catalysts of connotations and connotations are functions of
expectations/framing..
Some conflate cause with purpose thereby limiting perception of cause and purpose.
Some understand that causation is interactive and in any lateral system the genesis of
causation is difficult to determine.
Some understand that evaluation is a function of purpose and that purpose can be evaluated
through such portals into wonderlands such as "What is the "United States of America" and how
is it facilitated?"
As thumb-nailed in the comments section of the article Capitalism's suicidal trajectory
– OlyaPola
December 6, 2019 at 07:46
"From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet
Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global
domination. "
From 1922 onwards various tactics have been attempted by the "West" to facilitate their
purpose, including attempts at "Orange revolution" in many areas which catalysed many lateral
trajectories including the process of transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian
Federation in the period from 1991 to 2005.
Consequently Mr. Suslov's observation re war of "The United States of America" can be
extended into present times and hence no "New cold war" exists.
""What is the "United States of America"
An initial step through the portal is that "The United States of America" is – a
regime of social relations to facilitate its purpose – the social relations not being
restricted to the "nation state" presently self designated "The United States of America" but
including classes in other "nation states".
Consequently alternative purposes and social relations pose an existential threat to "The
United States of America"; this being perceived of lesser significance in regard to "The
Soviet Union" and greater in regard to the Russian Federation.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country
on earth capable of obliterating the United States. Not even China has yet reached that
capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting,
and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the
scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The
Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met
with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment
for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin
seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last
two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems
to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
@Moi You are quite correct. The overly sanguine attitude of many Christians toward
nuclear war one might call "nuclear exceptionalism." They adopted the imaginary hope of
Anglo-Irish 1800's cult leader John Nelson Darby: "Darby has been credited with originating
the pre-tribulational rapture theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the
Church, from this world to its heavenly destiny before the judgments of the tribulation."
(Wikipedia).
The military leadership are loaded with rapture believers, in particular the Air Force. So
if the world nukes itself, that's fine by them; they have no skin in the "game."
Except that on Judgment Day they will have to give account for the lives they destroy by
their recklessness. The turning of Christ into a war god is both blasphemy and idolatry, for
which also they will give account. "My Kingdom is not of this world," said the Lord to
Pilate. Christians are to contend for the Gospel through love, not war.
Both Saker reviews are important, and I'll get both books.
My own experience with US Army officers and enlisted – and this extended over40
years off and on, the last encounters six continuous years ending in 1992 – was that
the WW2 men were realists and competent. And that their replacements were delusional fools.
The level of incompetence was breath-taking by 1992 – when NATO as the cloak of Empire
undertook to bomb cities in Yugoslavia – self evidently criminal and foolish officers
went along And I said Adios MoFo
@peterAUS Tactical nukes. Such a humane idea. Doesn't that make everyone feel warm and
fuzzy all over. Nuclear war, even a first strike, is now acceptable. Isn't semantics
wonderful! Tactical nukes are the thing, to NOT prick the conscience of the western public.
I do not envy the Russian position. They can't publicly warn the US/Israel against nuclear
strikes. The MSM would take such a common sense position and spin into more Russian bullying.
How dare they tell us what we can't do! The Russian message would quickly be lost in a wave
of western hysterics.
On the other hand, a secret warning is of limited value. If they listen, great. What if
they call Russia's bluff? Being secret, the Russians could back down and not even lose face.
It seems obvious that the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea
that they can get away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will
mean the end of humanity therefore they will not respond.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war comes
to Iran. How much damage will nuking an entire country do to Russia and all of Asia? If the
fall out is that extreme then they might treat such an attack as an attack on Russia itself.
I do think the likely plan is to make the best of whatever happens. No matter how one spins
it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity. An extreme option the Russians will
try to avoid if possible.
All this is based on the assumption Israel or America will use their nuclear arsenal. If
Hitler had the bomb in 1945 would he have used it? Of course he would have. The people
running the West have shown the same callous disregard for human life. There is no moral
deterrent to stop these people. Plus all western propaganda the past 20 years has been aimed
at making the use of nuclear weapons acceptable. Why would they be conditioning their public
unless they wished to have the option to use them?
How do we get there? Yes the US military has the ability to drop lots of bombs and destroy
many things. Yet in any war primary targets will all be hit fairly quickly. Then what? From
Day Two they are into the phase of diminishing returns. This is what confronted the IDF in
2006. So you go to tactical nukes. However I see the nuclear attack coming on the heels of a
ferocious Iranian counter attack. Psychologically can America handle even minimal losses? The
most likely response will be a huge temper tantrum: "how dare they fight back!" The nuclear
option will be taken because things will have gone wrong. It will be as much a show of
weakness as strength. Plus it won't be just one of two bombs. Because the Iranians will not
say "Uncle". The Japanese did after Nagasaki, however the Japanese were trying to surrender
the entire time. The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable. Especially if there is no longer any Reason left in the western world.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most apathetic/ignorant
and propagandized public on the planet. As Vietnam and Iraq proved, Americans have no
conscience when it comes to dead foreigners. They get what they deserve for "starting" a war
against Uncle Sam. Yet there are two Achilles Heels.
1) Americans hate losing. Iraq was a great success during the Mission Accomplished phase.
The moment the narrative changed Americans quickly switched to hating their leadership for
botching Iraq. So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win
– and can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender. Or how well does the MSM
do in turning such losses into part of a patriotic war that Americans' must support and
win?
2) Quality of life. All westerners are the most spoiled people in human history.
Consequently we have become the most materialistic and the most superficial people ever. We
are an "end justifies the means" society. So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and
our quality of life hasn't fallen too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our
political elites a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Bomb Yugoslavia, invade
Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, murder Palestinians, sanction or threaten
regime change the list is endless. Everything is on the table – likely nuclear
holocaust too(so long as it's them doing the dying) – just don't mess with our Cozy
Prisons! Support for war on Iran will evaporate pretty fast unless such a war can be
prosecuted quickly and everything can return to normal fast. Definitely westerners –
not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes. There will be some initial shock,
which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall into line because we'll need to win
the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be seen as the convenient solution for
the problem. End justifies the means.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Circle 2021 on your calendars. Once Trump is re-elected there will be nothing to stop him.
If there are any history classes in the future then 2021 will be remember like 1914 or 1789
or 1066. I still hope it is remembered as the year the states of Israel and USA ceased to
exist.
@Jim Christian "Fact is, if the elites and corporate defense establishment of the US
would become diplomatic, imagine the cooperation between us and Russia that could take place.
Imagine the prosperity! Even the elites could share in it!"
Exactly so. This was the basis for my immediate initial support for Trump; his calling
bullshit on the entire rationale behind the empire, and the potential benefits of a new
detente. (Even if we were evil geni, it would make more sense to at least pretend to be
non-threatening.) This is the root of the hostility to Trump, IMO.
Incidentally, this piece and it's commentary is greatly supportive of Ron's argument that
heavy users should step up and financially support the UR. I haven't seen this sort of thing
anywhere else easily available on the web. I don't comment much here (feeling somewhat too
short for this ride ) but I do spend hours everyday, reading most of the articles and many
comments. Would definitely donate.
@Andrei Martyanov I suspect that the US is extremely concerned about Russia's
decapitating first strike capability via nuclear armed Zircons (1-2 minutes flight time to
Washington DC or New York) who are hard to detect, almost impossible to stop missiles. The US
does not have a capability like this. This is why the whole talk about buying Greenland. It
is very important to stop russian subs from reaching the Atlantic US Coast.
How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?
In 1-2 minutes the WhiteHouse, Congress, Federal Reserve HQ, CIA and NSA HQs, Pentagon,
etc will be gone. No wonder Putin is trolling the US about selling some hypersonic
weapons.
.the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea that they can get
away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will mean the end of
humanity therefore they will not respond.
Something like that.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war
comes to Iran.
Any interested state-level player has.
No matter how one spins it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity.
Yep.
There is no moral deterrent to stop these people.
You mean TPTBs in the West? Yep ..
The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable.
Disagree.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most
apathetic/ignorant and propagandized public on the planet.
Don't say.
So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win – and
can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender.
The Iranian regime can surrender–>from then on there are a couple of
scenarios.
As, for example:
So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and our quality of life hasn't fallen
too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our political elites a blank cheque to do
whatever they like
And so long as I don't get drafted to be a part of occupying force in Iran among some
other things.
Definitely westerners – not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes.
There will be some initial shock, which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall
into line because we'll need to win the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be
seen as the convenient solution for the problem. End justifies the means.
Yep.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Now, the key question is, how is this relevant. I have no doubt that this and previous book
contain good info, but can this info be ever digested by the US politicians and neocons? Of
course not!
The US elites have degenerated to the point of no return. This always happens to the
elites of dying empires. So, discussing the reality, military or economic, with them is like
teaching madhouse inmates calculus. You might be right, but they won't appreciate it.
@Jim Christian There is already some internal opposition to war with Iran. Out of the
various recent provocations, the US has been reluctant to escalate. Maybe its Trump's
skepticism regarding the list of options provided by the military. Or his political
instincts. It would be an unpopular war without a rapid, decisive victory, which is
unrealistic.
I think other than a rather weak veto power, Trump is too weak to prevent a war. So I
think some other faction of the elite is resisting. Maybe the military. It would be logical
for them to resist. They got their big budget without needing a war. And they would be stuck
with the mess.
The war has been teed up for a Trump signoff two or three times lately. If the only
missing piece is finding the sucker to take the blame, it is inevitable. Rather, I would
infer that there is some deep opposition, that is lying low. The large defense contractors
have it pretty good right now, but they probably aren't set up to oppose any war, however
foolish.
@Andrei Martyanov Our societies have been gutted by thieves and their accomplices while
the thieves buddies look on and play loud music to confuse everyone. The thieves are the
buzzard 'capitalists', the accomplices are the crooked politicians and the noise comes from
the media.
The common denominator in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., NZ and others is that the
thieves den is a triumvirate: Old Money 'elite' (read: scum), New Money Jews and the
politicos (multi-generational civil servant families and the con artists talking head actors
who play president, pm, etc.).
The West has been systematically destroyed. Every institution has been corrupted including
our religions. The Vatican, for example, was completely corrupted in the early 1960's when,
according to Father Malachi Martin, Satan formally enthroned himself in Vatican City.
There is a common denominator here gentlemen: destruction. Satan is always close to any such
destruction which is why Communism has always been so anti-Christian and anti-religion (China
destroyed Buddhism and is destroying Falun Gong, or trying to). Our elites and the elite Jews
have a religion of their own: Luciferianism.
It is time to pray gentlemen. We need a miracle. It isn't too late to turn this ship around.
We just need the willpower to do it. Prayer is the beginning of building the strength to do
what is needed for our progeny.
@Passer by{ the US is extremely concerned about Russia's decapitating first strike
capability} {How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?}
By making sure US does not initiate a nuke strike on Russia.
Why would Russia initiate a 'decapitating* nuke strike' on US?
What will she gain by it? Nothing.
Both US and Russia will have more than enough surviving nukes to wipe the other out, and then
some, if one of them initiates a nuke first strike.
My guess is Russia continues developing faster, harder to detect nuke strike systems to
deter the psychopaths in US from doing something stupid and awful. But the problem with all
these developments of ever faster strike capabilities – on both sides – is that
the possibility of an accidental nuke strike by one side or another, keeps increasing.
Because it takes a few minutes for a missile to reach its target, you cannot afford to wait:
if your defenses falsely detect a 'launch', then you _have_ to launch and then the runaway
chain reaction of strike-counterstrike-countercounterstrike begins ..and everything ends.
______________________________
* there is no such thing as 'decapitating' nuke strike against US or Russia. Both are
large enough and have enough nuke warheads (8,000-10,000) to render the idea of a
'decapitating' strike meaningless. Just one (surviving) boomer sub (US or Russia) carries
enough nuke warheads/megatons to wipe most of US/Russia.
"... Primacists use the security threats that are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't stop, or in fact increase, the use of force. ..."
"... These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example, veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all parties involved. ..."
"... September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and denying this space wouldn't have prevented it. ..."
"... For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the Pacific." ..."
"... The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and importance. ..."
"... This article originally appeared on LobeLog.com . ..."
The unrivaled and unchallenged exertion of American military power around the world, or
what's known as "primacy," has been the basis for U.S. Grand Strategy over the past 70 years
and has faced few intellectual and political challenges. The result has been stagnant ideas,
poor logic, and an ineffective foreign policy. As global security challenges have evolved, our
foreign policy debate has remained in favor of primacy, repeatedly relying on a select few,
poorly conceived ideas and arguments. Primacy's greatest hits arguments are played on repeat
throughout the policy and journalism worlds and its latest presentation is in a recent
article in
the Wall Street Journal, written by its chief foreign policy correspondent, titled,
"America Can't Escape the Middle East." The piece provides a case study in how stagnant these
ideas have become, and how different actors throughout the system present them without serious
thought or contemplation.
Hyping the threat of withdrawal
The WSJ piece trotted out one of the most well-worn cases for unending American military
deployments in the region. "The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be a debacle," it rightly
notes. However, there's always a "but":[B]ut subsequent attempts to pivot away from the region
or ignore it altogether have contributed to humanitarian catastrophes, terrorist outrages and
geopolitical setbacks, further eroding America's standing in the world."
Primacists often warn of the dire security threats that will result from leaving Middle East
conflict zones. The reality is that the threats they cite are actually caused by the
unnecessary use of force by the United States in the first place. For example, the U.S. sends
military assets to deter Iran, only to have Iran increase attacks or provocations in response.
The U.S. then beefs up its military presence
to protect the forces that are already there. Primacists use the security threats that
are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't
stop, or in fact increase, the use of force.
These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently
ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example,
veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at
unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even
draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't
induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the
Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and
don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all
parties involved.
Terrorism safe havens
And how many times have we heard that we must defend some undefined geographical space to
prevent extremists from plotting attacks? "In the past, jihadists used havens in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Syria and Iraq to plot more ambitious and deadly attacks, including 9/11," the WSJ piece
says. "Though Islamic State's self-styled 'caliphate' has been dismantled, the extremist
movement still hasn't been eliminated -- and can bounce back."
The myth of the terrorism safe havens enabling transnational attacks on the United States
has
persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and significant scholarly research
that contradicts it. The myth persists because it provides a simple and comforting narrative
that's easy to understand. September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the
ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and
denying this space wouldn't have prevented it.
Terrorists don't need safe havens to operate, and only gain marginal increases in
capabilities by having access to them. Organizations engage in terrorism because they have such
weak capabilities in the first place. These movements are designed to operate underground with
the constant threat of arrest and execution. The Weatherman Underground in the United States
successfully carried out bombings while operating within the United States itself. The Earth
Liberation Front did the same by organizing into cells where no cell knew anything about the
other cells to prevent the identification of other members if members of one cell were
arrested. Organizations that engage in terrorism can operate with or without safe havens.
Although safe havens don't add significantly to a terrorist groups' capabilities, governing
your own territory is something completely different. ISIS is a commonly used, and misused,
example for why wars should be fought to deny safe havens. A safe haven is a country or region
in which a terrorist group is free from harassment or persecution. This is different from what
ISIS created in 2014. What ISIS had when it swept across Syria and Iraq in 2014 was a
proto-state. This gave them access to a tax base, oil revenues, and governing resources. Safe
havens don't provide any of this, at least not at substantial levels. The Islamic State's
construction of a proto-state in Syria and Iraq did give them operational capabilities they
wouldn't have had otherwise, but this isn't the same as the possible safe havens that would be
gained from a military withdrawal from Middle Eastern conflicts. The conditions of ISIS's rise
in 2014 don't exist today and the fears of an ISIS resurgence like their initial rise are
unfounded .
Credibility doesn't work how you think it works
For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always
be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America
withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea
and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the
Pacific."
Most commentators have made this claim without recognition of their own contradictions that
abandoning the Kurds in Syria would damage American credibility. They then list all the other
times we've abandoned the Kurds. Each of these betrayals didn't stop them from working with the
United States again, and this latest iteration will be the same. People don't work with the
United States because they trust or respect us, they do it because we have a common interest
and the United States has the capability to get things done. As we were abandoning the Kurds
this time to be attacked by the Turks, Kurdish officials were continuing to
share intelligence with U.S. officials to facilitate the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi because both the United States and the Kurds wanted Baghdadi eliminated and only
the United States had the capability to get it done.
Similarly, the idea that pulling out militarily in one region results in a direct chain of
events where our adversaries move into countries or areas in a completely different region is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Russia moved into Crimea because it's a strategic asset and
it was taking advantage of what it saw as an opportunity: instability and chaos in Kiev. Even
if we left troops in every conflict country we've ever been in, Russia would have correctly
assessed that Ukraine just wasn't important enough to spark a U.S. invasion. When the Soviets
withdrew from Afghanistan, did the United States invade Cuba? What alliance did the Soviets or
Chinese abandon before the United States entered the Korean War?
Assessments of credibility , especially in times of crisis (like that in Ukraine), are made
based on what leaders think the other country's interests are and the capabilities they have to
pursue those interests. There is no evidence to support -- in fact there is a lot of evidence
that contradicts -- the idea that withdrawing militarily from one region or ending an alliance
has any impact on assessments of a country's reliability or credibility.
Not all interests are created equal
Threat inflation isn't just common from those who promote a primacy-based foreign policy,
it's necessary. Indeed, as the WSJ piece claimed, "There is no avoiding the fact that the
Middle East still matters a great deal to U.S. interests."
The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need
to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists
couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve
all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and
importance. Vital interests are those that directly impact the survival of the United
States. The only thing that can threaten the survival of the United States is another powerful
state consolidating complete control of either Europe or East Asia. This would give them the
capabilities and freedom to strike directly at the territorial United States. This is why the
United States stayed in Europe after WWII, to prevent the consolidation of Europe by the
Soviets. Addressing the rise of China -- which will require some combination of cooperation and
competition -- is America's vital interest today and keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a
terrorism safe haven barely registers as a peripheral interest. There are U.S. interests in the
Middle East, but these interests are not important enough to sacrifice American soldiers for
and can't easily be secured through military force anyway.
Consequences
Most of these myths and arguments can be summarized by the claim that any disengagement of
any kind by the United States from the Middle East comes with consequences. This isn't entirely
wrong, but it isn't really relevant either unless compared with the consequences of continuing
engagement at current levels. We currently have 67,000 troops in the
Middle East and Afghanistan and those troops are targets of adversaries, contribute to
instability, empower hardliners in Iran, and provide continuing legitimacy to insurgent and
terrorist organizations fighting against a foreign occupation. One
article in The Atlantic argued that the problem with a progressive foreign policy
is that restraint comes with costs, almost ironically ignoring the fact that the U.S.'s current
foreign policy also comes with, arguably greater, costs. A military withdrawal, or even
drawdown, from the Middle East does come with consequences, but it's only believable that these
costs are higher than staying through the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions that inflate
such risks and costs. No wonder then that these myths have become the greatest hits of a
foreign policy that's stuck in the past.
"... " Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption . There was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month? $83,000 -- that's a million dollars a year," said Cruz - adding "The media ought to care if there is actual corruption ... Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil? " ..."
"... Todd then asked Cruz: "Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" - to which Cruz replied "I do. And I think there is considerable evidence ." ..."
"... Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created "a false narrative" in order to hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary - to which Cruz shot back: "Ha, ha, ha. Except that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said in the phone call." ..."
"... "On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here's the game the media is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends ..."
"... Media & Chuck Todd, having lied throughout the Russia "collusion" BS, now lie about Ukraine. And if Todd wants to be the mouthpiece for the Dems, then he should have the integrity to resign from the news business &push his propaganda as a paid DNC hack ..."
Resistance activist and NBC host Chuck Todd lost his cool on Sunday after Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-TX) said that Ukraine "blatantly interfered" in the 2016 US election.
Of note, less than three months before Donald Trump was elected, Ukrainian officials working
with a DNC operative leaked a " black
ledger " containing evidence of off-book payments to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort -
leading to his disruptive ouster, while Ukraine's ambassador to the UK, Valeriy Chaly wrote in
an Op-Ed for
The Hill slamming Trump in the same month.
While Democrats have sought to ignore or downplay this as a 'debunked' theory, Republicans
aren't letting it go - nor are they giving the Bidens a pass for what looks like textbook
corruption while then-Vice President Joe Biden was in charge of the Obama administration's
Ukraine policy.
" Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption . There was
serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma,
the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month?
$83,000 -- that's a million dollars a year," said Cruz - adding "The media ought to care if
there is actual corruption ... Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making
ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil? "
Todd then asked Cruz: "Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" -
to which Cruz replied "I do. And I think there is considerable evidence ."
Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created "a false narrative" in order to
hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary - to which Cruz shot back: "Ha, ha, ha. Except
that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read
what was said in the phone call."
"On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here's the game the media
is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends
Media & Chuck Todd, having lied throughout the Russia "collusion" BS, now lie about Ukraine. And if Todd wants to be the mouthpiece for the Dems, then he should have the
integrity to resign from the news business &push his propaganda as a paid DNC hack
top 7 donors all obvious connections to global agenda.... and Ireland by association, but
curious who the corporatocracies are connected to Ireland -Usual suspects I presume ( with
"usual suspects" having a group of real actors in contrast to the poser JV team in
Eiremen
"... "Except that's not what happened," Cruz said. He went on to accuse "the media" of playing "a game" and "pretends" no country except Russia interfered in the election. When Cruz invoked an op-ed from former Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly as proof of their interference, Todd derided that equivalence by saying "you're saying a pick-pocket, which essentially is a Hill op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin . You are trying to make them both seem equal. I don't understand that." ..."
"... "I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because A: they were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted anyway. And B: it's inconvenient for the narrative." ..."
Senator Ted Cruz and NBC's Chuck Todd had an intense exchange on Meet the Press over
the media's role in fueling President Donald Trump's impeachment firestorm.
As Cruz defended Trump's dealings with Russia and Ukraine, he bashed House Democrats for the
"garbage" report they put out on Saturday to outline the legal argument for proceeding with
impeachment. This led to an initial flare-up where Todd and Cruz went back and forth about
whether Trump's conduct meets Constitutional standards for an impeachable misdemeanor.
Cruz segued the conversation toward Hunter Biden's controversial employment with Burisma,
saying "the media ought to care if there is actual corruption" regarding Joe Biden's son. Todd
countered by remarking that "the reason you know this information is the media reported it,"
and shortly after that, he asked Cruz "do you believe Ukraine meddled in the election in
2016?"
"I do," Cruz answered, "and I think there is considerable evidence."
... ... ...
"I appreciate you dragging up all that garbage, that's very kind of you," Cruz interjected
as Todd asked "Is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative
about somebody in order to help him politically?"
"Except that's not what happened," Cruz said. He went on to accuse "the media" of playing "a
game" and "pretends" no country except Russia interfered in the election. When Cruz invoked an
op-ed from former Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly as proof of their interference, Todd
derided that equivalence by saying "you're saying a pick-pocket, which essentially is a Hill
op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin . You are trying to make them both seem
equal. I don't understand that."
Cruz's retort:
"I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because A: they were
trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted
anyway. And B: it's inconvenient for the narrative."
From page 12 of Martyanov's RRMA, " people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, none of whom had spent a
day serving in cadre officer uniform "
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years and retired from the Navy Reserve as a full
Captain.
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years
A Tracker, in 1950s for a couple of years, while having a degree in Political Science. That sure qualifies him for making strategic
decisions, right? Especially in the 21st century. Well, we all saw results, didn't we?
@Jim Christian Jim, a lot of truth in what you say. But especially this:
As for the military? A reflection of our society. When I went into the Navy in 1975, it was Stars and Stripes and we served
in large part for Mom, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Here is a quote from one of Russian undercover intelligence assets which was outed when Anna Chapman was outed. Unlike her,
however, this guy was a real deal. Here is what he had to say recently about US:
What is THEIR weakness? As enemies these guys are mediocrities, second rate. They overate. Their previous generation was
stronger. They respected us, we respected them. We don't respect these ones,they didn't deserve it. They can bully, as for
the real fight–we'll see about that They are enraged that soon they will have to live within their means.They forgot how to
do so long time ago. That is why they want to solve a problem with us now, while others are still afraid of them.
I remember 70s and 80s clearly, being myself a Cold Warrior, these were different times. many different people. Today, as you
say, I see decay everywhere in everything, the country (the US) was literally robbed, people blinded and all for a reasons of
bottom line in "business" and for Israel's, Saudi and corporate interests. The America I encountered in 1990s is gone.
So a republican staffer, a neocon without any diplomatic experience was the NSC senior director of European and Russian
affairs, the successor of Fiona Hill.
Washington
-- A top National Security Council official who listened to President Trump's July call with the
president of Ukraine told lawmakers he "promptly" told White House lawyers he was concerned details of the call would
become public, but did not think "anything illegal was discussed" during the conversation.
Tim Morrison, the outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council and a
deputy assistant to the president, is testifying before committees leading the
impeachment inquiry
on Capitol Hill on Thursday. He has emerged as a central witness to the events at the center
of the inquiry, particularly the administration's policy toward Ukraine.
CBS News learned the substance of his opening statement to the committees, which ran six pages and appears below.
Morrison said the summary released by the White House of the call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky accurately reflects his memory and understanding of the call, but he said he had three concerns in the event
the summary became public.
"[F]irst, how it would play out in Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the
bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the
Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship," Morrison, who was in the Situation Room for the call, told
lawmakers. "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."
However, he also corroborated a central allegation in the Democratic case against the president: that a U.S.
ambassador told a high-ranking Ukrainian official that the release of military aid was contingent on an investigation
into the Bidens.
Tim Morrison arrives for a deposition at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on October 31,
2019.
SAUL LOEB / AF
Morrison said his predecessor, Fiona Hill, told him about "concerns about two Ukraine processes that were
occurring": one led by traditional U.S. diplomatic entities, and one led by the U.S. Ambassador the E.U. Gordon
Sondland and Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. He said Hill told him about their efforts to get Ukraine
to investigate Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that had employed Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe
Biden's son.
"At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the investigation entailed," Morrison said. "After the
meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy company and that Hunter Biden was
on its board."
Morrison said he spoke frequently with Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in the embassy in Kiev. Taylor
testified before the committees
last week and described his misgivings about efforts to pressure Ukraine
to open investigations into the president's rivals. Morrison, in his statement, confirmed the substance of Taylor's
account, but said he remembered two details differently.
Taylor testified that Morrison told him Sondland had demanded the Ukrainian president announce an investigation
into Burisma, while Morrison said he remembered Sondland saying an announcement by the country's top prosecutor would
suffice. Taylor also indicated Morrison met with the Ukrainian national security adviser in his hotel room, while
Morrison said it was in the hotel's business center.
Morrison said he learned about a delay in military aid to Ukraine shortly after assuming his post, and was tasked
with coordinating with various agencies to demonstrate why the aid was needed.
"I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could convince President Trump to
release the aid," he said.
Morrison testified he had "no reason to believe" the Ukrainians knew of a delay in military aid until August 28,
and said he was unaware the aid may have been tied to the demand for an investigation into Burisma until he spoke to
Sondland on September 1.
Morrison arrived on Capitol Hill before 8 a.m. Thursday for his deposition after Democrats issued a subpoena for
his testimony. A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee chairman declined to comment on his opening statement.
Morrison appeared on the same day the House
approved a resolution
greenlighting the rules for impeachment proceedings moving forward.
On Wednesday, officials said Morrison would be leaving his White House post. He said in his statement he has yet
to submit his resignation "because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and
my impending departure."
"I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish," he said.
Read Morrison's full statement
Opening Statement of Timothy Morrison
Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
October 31, 2019
Chairman Schiff and Members of the Committees, I appear today under subpoena to answer your questions about my
time as Senior Director for European Affairs at the White House and the National Security Council ("NSC"). I will
give you the most complete information I can, consistent with my obligations to the President and the protection of
classified information. I do not know who the whistleblower is, nor do I intend to speculate as to who it may be.
Before joining the NSC in 2018, I spent 17 years as a Republican staffer, serving in a variety of roles in both
houses of Congress. My last position was Policy Director for the then-Majority Staff of the House Armed Services
Committee.
I. The Role of the National Security Council
From July 9, 2018 to July 15, 2019, I served as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security and as
the NSC Senior Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Biodefense. In that role, I had limited exposure to
Ukraine, focusing primarily on foreign military sales and arms control. On July 15, 2019, I became Deputy Assistant
to the President for National Security. In this role, I serve as the lead interagency coordinator for national
security issues involving Europe and Russia.
It is important to start with the role of the NSC. Since its creation by Congress in 1947, the NSC has
appropriately evolved in shape and size to suit the needs of the President and the National Security Advisor it
serves at the time. But its mission and core function has fundamentally remained the same: to coordinate across
departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to ensure the President has the policy options he needs to
accomplish his objectives and to see that his decisions are implemented. The NSC staff does not make policy. NSC
staff are most effective when we are neutral arbiters, helping the relevant Executive Branch agencies develop options
for the President and implement his direction.
In my current position, I understood our primary U.S. policy objective in Ukraine was to take advantage of the
once-in-a-generation opportunity that resulted from the election of President Zelensky and the clear majority he had
gained in the Ukrainian Rada to see real anti-corruption reform take root.
The Administration's policy was that
the best way for the United States to show its support for President Zelensky's reform efforts was to make sure the
United States' longstanding bipartisan commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered, it is easy to
forget here in Washington, but impossible in Kyiv, that Ukraine is still under armed assault by Russia, a
nuclear-armed state.
We also tend to forget that the United States had helped convince Ukraine to give up Soviet
nuclear weapons in 1994. United States security sector assistance (from the Departments of Defense and State) is,
therefore, essential to Ukraine. Also essential is a strong and positive relationship with Ukraine at the highest
levels of our respective governments.
In my role as Senior Director for European Affairs, I reported directly to former Deputy National Security
Advisor, Dr. Charles Kupperman, and former National Security Advisor, Ambassador John Bolton. I kept them fully
informed on matters that I believed merited their awareness or when I felt I needed some direction. During the time
relevant to this inquiry, I never briefed the President or Vice President on matters related to Ukrainian security.
It was my job to coordinate with the U.S. Embassy Chief of Mission to Ukraine William Taylor, Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker, and other interagency stakeholders in the Departments of Defense and State of
Ukrainian matters.
My primary responsibility has been to ensure federal agencies had consistent messaging and policy guidance on
national security issues involving European and Russian affairs. As Dr. Fiona Hill and I prepared for me to succeed
her, one of the areas we discussed was Ukraine. In that discussion, she informed me of her concerns about two Ukraine
processes that were occurring: the normal interagency process led by the NSC with the typical department and agency
participation and a separate process that involved chiefly the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union. Dr. Hill told
me that Ambassador Sondland and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were trying to get President
Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations into Burisma. At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the
investigation entailed. After the meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy
company and that Hunter Biden was on its board. I also did not understand why Ambassador Sondland would be involved
in Ukraine policy, often without the involvement of our duly-appointed Chief of Mission, Ambassador Bill Taylor.
My most frequent conversations were with Ambassador Taylor because he was the U.S. Chief of Mission in Ukraine and
I was his chief conduit for information related to White House deliberations, including security sector assistance
and potential head-of-state meetings. This is a normal part of the coordination process.
II. Review of Open Source Documents in Preparation for Testimony
In preparation for my appearance today, I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on
October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is
accurate. My recollections differ on two of the details, however. I have a slightly different recollection of my
September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland. On page 10 of Ambassador Taylor's statement, he recounts a
conversation I relayed to him regarding Ambassador Sondland's conversation with Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Yermak.
Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until
President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's
proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general -- not President Zelensky -- would
commit to pursue the Burisma investigation. I also would like to clarify that I did not meet with the Ukrainian
National Security Advisor in his hotel room, as Ambassador Taylor indicated on page 11 of his statement. Instead, an
NSC aide and I met with Mr. Danyliuk in the hotel's business center.
I also reviewed the Memorandum of Conversation ("MemCont') of the July 25 phone call that was released by the
White House. I listened to the call as it occurred from the Situation Room. To the best of my recollection, the
MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call. I also recall that I did not see anyone from the
NSC Legal Advisor's Office in the room during the call. After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and
his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in
Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners
currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine
relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.
III. White House Hold on Security Sector Assistance
I was not aware that the White House was holding up the security sector assistance passed by Congress until my
superior, Dr. Charles Kupperman, told me soon after I succeeded Dr. Hill. I was aware that the President thought
Ukraine had a corruption problem, as did many others familiar with Ukraine. I was also aware that the President
believed that Europe did not contribute enough assistance to Ukraine. I was directed by Dr. Kupperman to coordinate
with the interagency stakeholders to put together a policy process to demonstrate that the interagency supported
security sector assistance to Ukraine. I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State
and Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could
convince President Trump to release the aid because President Zelensky and the reform-oriented Rada were genuinely
invested in their anti-corruption agenda.
Ambassador Taylor and I were concerned that the longer the money was withheld, the more questions the Zelensky
administration would ask about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. Our initial hope was that the money would be released
before the hold became public because we did not want the newly constituted Ukrainian government to question U.S.
support.
I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the review until August 28, 2019. Ambassador
Taylor and I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a
public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland.
Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders
in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.
I am pleased our process gave the President the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector
assistance. My regret is that Ukraine ever learned of the review and that, with this impeachment inquiry, Ukraine has
become subsumed in the U.S. political process.
IV. Conclusion
After 19 years of government service, I have decided to leave the NSC. I have not submitted a formal resignation
at this time because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and my impending
departure. I plan to finalize my transition from the NSC after my testimony is complete.
During my time in public service, I have worked with some of the smartest and most self-sacrificing people in this
country. Serving at the White House in this time of unprecedented global change has been the opportunity of a
lifetime. I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish.
Well, spending 5% of GDP on military and lowering further the standard of living of population will definitely increase the
security of the US MIC. Not so much the security of Ukraine.
Attributed to Mark Twain. Perhaps the learned professor Karlan may affirm: "Never argue with
stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
I cannot understand how any Democrat who is interested in winning in 2020 can think that
Biden is their best candidate. Similarly, I do not understand how any neoliberal can think
that backing Biden will save their positions in the party apparatus. If Biden is nominated
and is badly beaten, the dinosaurs now running the party will not be able to simultaneously
hold off the prog left while also holding the party together. But they seem bent on repeating
the same mistake the GOP made in 2012 with Romney.
If Biden had a better answer - or any answer - regarding Hunter, that would be one thing.
Like Kamala Harris's inability to respond to attacks on her Weed-For-Me-But-Not-For-Thee
stance, the media shield surrounding Borg-ists does not help them when they are unable to
avoid questions about actually existing reality.
Questions about his crackhead son is an obvious trigger, and all Biden is doing is
telegraphing this opening to Trump. The President, who never got the memo that the job of
conservatives is to lose gracefully and repeatedly so long as the tax cuts flowed, will not
shrink from using this the way a loser like Romney would.
My guess is Democrats know they can't win in 2020, so they will sacrifice their most
expendable and/or most annoying.
Biden earned this 2020 shot by sheer longevity in the system, but since he will be a 2020
loser, why not put him in this unenviable position as the DNC nominee. John McCain served a
similar purpose in 2008 - when no GOP had a chance after GW Bush.
No one wanted the job, so falling on his sword with some sense of duty John McCain stood
up as best he could. He goosed the entire operation with his addition of Sarah Palin which
opened up new legions of GOP voters.
And exposed the hypocrisy of the Left at the same time - no one was more anti-women than
the Democrats who attacked both Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin with unrestrained venom.
Someone should be taking Joe Biden's car keys away not trying to give him an important
government position. His mental acuity was never above average seems to have degraded
significantly. Pity the corrupt DNC can not allow the likes of Gabbard or Yang to shine more
brightly.
You expose the most obvious flaw in Schiff's impeachment crusade. Trump did not need any
"dirt" on Biden in order to win 2020. Biden will dig his own 6 feet under abode on his own,
if he makes it to the DNC nomination.
In fact, Trump would have gone out of his way to make sure Biden was the DNC pick. Which
is why this entire impeachment charade continues to get no traction. It simply does not sound
in fact. Regardless of the trumped up charges we are now being exposed to.
The more realistic picture is Trump sweeping the path in front of Biden, with a broom like
in a curling match, making sure Biden gets the DNC nod.
"... Today USA even is no more an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything negotiated by a rival spider. ..."
US political "elites" are generally appallingly incompetent in matters of war and are
"educated" mostly through Hollywood and Clansiesque "literature". I am not even sure that
they comprehend what Congressional Research Service prepares for them as compressed
briefings. Neocon wing of US political elite is simply mentally inadequate.
Very true, especially the part about "Hollywood and Clansiesque 'literature.'" I used to
read Clancy's books and, while entertaining, in retrospect they appear ridiculous, even
childish. But they probably capture the popular notion of American military invincibility
better than any other.
Most of Hollywood's output is garbage anyway, and its grasp of real war and military
matters appears to be that of a not so precocious third grader.
Katyn, whoever did it, was much before Cold War and before even first relatively small
nuclear blast.
And if you want to go that far – why not remember crisis over West Berlin, where
tank armees were watching one another, but no one pulled trigger?
Afghanistan was attacking one's own ally. Same as Prague 1968 and Hungary 1956.
If you want to compare – that is like USA invading Panama to remove their no longer
reliable puppet Norriega.
Did American attack on their own Panama risk USSR going ballistic? Hardly so. There was no Soviet invasion into Pakistan nor there was Chinese/American invasion into
India.
And looking away from purely military events, there was no attempt to arrest the whole
embassy stuff them, neither in Moscow nor in DC. No killing Soviet ambassadors in NATO states
during official events.
Those dirty games had red lines, both sides maintained. Today? Today USA even is no more
an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution
any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything
negotiated by a rival spider.
> deploying conventional anti-ballistic missile defenses around their most important
cities.
No, by then effective treaty both USSR and USA had only ONE region they were allowed to
protect.
Those were some nuclear launchpads in USA i guess, and one single city (Moscow) in USSR. No
more.
> deterrence [did not] worked > See the last phrase in bullet 2.
You suppose USSR killed itself trying to keep deterrence working.
That does not show it did not work, already.
That shows it worked so well (at least from Soviet perspective) that they gambled all they
had on the futile effort of keeping that deterrence working into the future.
Calling Trump 'Putin's boy' brings up coup tactics used by Birchers when Truman fired
MacArthur!
Brookings tools (Mr. Vindman (I have silver leaves Vindman does not fit) , Fiona Hill,
Holmes eavesdropping....) pleading to Schiff that Trump ain't their kind of 'Murekan empire
builder.
Making up "charges", hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over.
"...Making up 'charges', hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over."
[Funny (NOT) that they say the same thing about Trump. Your adversaries and yourself would
all make better lampshades or bars of soap than you do citizens.
Democracy has never been more than an illusion, sometimes just an allusion, particularly
though in modern republican times. Leaders have all too rarely been patriotic aside from
maybe George Washington, who largely despised the representative government that he had made.
TJ did not exactly fall in love with the US Congress either. In these times the political
class and their pet sycophants are more idiotic than patriotic.]
One bone: the coup #resistance despises the "office of the president" more than they (swamp
trolls like Schiff's tool Vindman) disdain deplorables and the US constitution.
It is a constitutional thingie in my view going back to the Henry Luce media and
Birchers/McCarthy (the ragings over "who lost Chiang's fiefdom in China?") going after anyone
who they described wrongfully in most cases as "subversives".
I believe that Washington was like Ike as to taking up the executive office.
"Eric Foner" in an effort to unearth this buried history
Calls Congressional Reconstruction
A second founding of the Republic
Reconstruction like the New Deal
Ended by producing its opposite
[ Please be careful in spelling names, and set down where the specific reference is. This
will be important, if a reference is set down. Also, further explanation when possible would
be helpful. ]
I doubt that it was imagination that characterized Joe McCarthy's behavior, but with friend
kurt then imagination appears to be in full blossom. Joe McCarthy was just an opportunistic
scoundrel crassly impersonating a concerned patriot as a pure political convenience for
attacking the left in general with specific intentions on casting a specter of fear over all
New Deal loyalists. He weaponized socialist sympathizers against FDR's legacy. Remember that
it was socialist sentiments that gave rise to FDR and his New Deal. It seemed only fair to
Joe that those same sentiments be used to cover FDR in his grave.
"... It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he behind that or was someone else? ..."
"... After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped. That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump. ..."
"... The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination. ..."
"... If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
@Z-man I
wasn't sure how to characterize McMaster and Kelly. My sense was that they represented the
foreign policy establishment consensus, ergo neocon by default.
I share your optimism about Trump -- because it's the only strand of hope out there, and
his enemies are so impeccably loathsome -- but am fully prepared to be proved wrong.
"How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it
was the doing and legacy of the neocon John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate such
appointees."
It started before Bolton came on board.
Believe Trump when he says "Loyalty to me first". And that begins with his son in law
Jared .his former personal attorney Jason Greenblatt .his former bankruptcy attorney David
Friedman and his largest donor Sheldon Adelson .
Trump is too stupid to see that his Zios have no loyalty to him. Trump doesn't appoint anyone, doesn't even know anyone to appoint to national security or
foreign policy. He never had any associations or confidents in his business life in NY except
the above Jews .
Ask yourself how a 29 year old Jewish boy (now gone) with zero experience got brought onto
the WH NSC. He was recommended by Gen. Flynn who did it as a favor to Zio Frank Gaffney of
Iraq fame, and Jared because he was a friend of Jared and Gaffney was a friend Ezra's family.
..getting the picture?
All Trumps appointments look like a chain letter started by Kushner and his Zio
connections.
It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to
understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an
example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he
behind that or was someone else?
He's a walking contradiction.
After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped.
That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that
Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump.
There was a lull in the attacks on Trump between the time they stopped the 24/7
Russia-gate garbage and start of Impeachment inquiry.
He did something else to tick them all off, so now impeachment is on front burner.
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
Decades old rhetorical question and answer-the indolent, indoctrinated and illiterate masses
who only care about the Super Bowl and other sports,Disneyland and burgers. Twelve per cent of
Americans have never heard of the Vice President Mike Pence - that is 30,870,000 American
adults.
It is the same people who have been making it since the creation of central banks in
America (all three of them).
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country,
they will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They
will not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war.
– John Turner, 1922
What coup? There have been loads of offenses, mostly to the liberal sense of decorum and
mildly to the republican notion of fair play. Orange is the new black.
"The story that has emerged in the impeachment hearings is one of extortion and bribery."
Ralph Nader and conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein have put together a
succinct series of audio topics on these and other good articles of impeachment, some which
are probably much more serious but would have also applied to most other recent
presidents.
It comes to mind that since most of Ralph and Bruce's articles equally apply to previous
Democratic presidents, and expose institutional disfunction among all the branches, that
Leadership may be pursuing this rather narrow inquiry to avoid some kind of self
incrimination unpleasantness.
Yes, the reason Democrats haven't gone after Trump for his more obvious forms of criminality
is most likely that they are guilty of the same forms of corruption.
Has anyone checked out what O'Bomber has been up to lately. It turns out that he's been
cashing out (no quid pro quo there!) And he's been hobnobbing with the wealthy folks who own
the Democratic Party and in his spare time he's been criticizing the Left!
"Equipped with fame, wealth, and a vast reservoir of residual goodwill Obama now has more
power to do good in an hour than most of us do in a lifetime. The demands of etiquette and
propriety notwithstanding, he no longer has intransigent Blue Dog senators to appease, donors
to placate, or personal electoral considerations to keep him up at night. When he speaks or
acts, we can be reasonably certain he does so out of sincere choice and that the substance of
his words and actions reflect the real Barack Obama and how he honestly sees the world.
It therefore tells us a great deal that, given the latitude, resources, and moral authority
with which to influence events, Obama has spent his post-presidency cozying up to the global
elite and delivering vapid speeches to corporate interests in exchange for unthinkable sums
of money.
Though often remaining out of the spotlight, he has periodically appeared next to various
CEOs at events whose descriptions might be read as cutting satire targeting the hollowness of
business culture if they weren't all-too real. As the world teeters on the brink of
ecological disaster, he recently cited an increase in America's output of oil under his
administration as a laudable achievement.
When Obama has spoken about or intervened in politics, it's most often been to bolster the
neoliberal center-right or attack and undermine the Left." https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/obama-socialism
But to EMichael and his ilk, it was all Republicans' fault that O'bombers didn't get much
done O'Bomber's eye on his personal prize--his post-presidential earning potential--never
figured in!!!
Stephen Cohen (one of the few pundits who actually knows something about Russia:)
"Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things
about Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the
process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic
Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no "attack"
in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both
Russia and America have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more
phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And
yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse,
campaigning, and fund-raising.
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President
Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation
"Intelgate," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in
his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally
Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions.
This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but
these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be
fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his
appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's critics
accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report.
And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about
Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly
endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US
missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and
urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so.But even if he
is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his
predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge" accusations
still being directed at him?" https://www.thenation.com/article/inconvenient-truths-2/
The Russia thingie/falsehoods are part of corrupt demrats assault on the US constitution.
They are even now predicting their loss in 2020 due to "interference" and people wanting to
know how corrupt the DNC [front running] select has been!
Demrat allies in the shadow revolving door government of neocon humbug factories are
denouncing Trump for his ignoring their war mongering imperial objects.
[Adding assault to injury? The US Constitution was damning enough on its own. What are
they thinking inside the deep state apparatus? Don't they know that power and privilege is
reserved for holders of wealth by the US Constitution? Who do they think that they are really
working for?]
Friend ilsm may be less nuts than it appears, but friend ilsm is not less incomprehensible
than it appears. Would it be out of place to thank you for ilsm's sake?
Our two-party system was largely useless after FDR, but our two-party system has been
largely destructive since 1968. Let me know if anything really changes.
It isn't our two party system - it is one of the two parties contained within. The "both
sides" are bad is both demonstrably not accurate (with some exceptions that prove the rule)
and requires ignoring the shattered norms of the last 10 years that came from only one side.
Mitch McConnell is the most dangerous person in America. Trump and Pence are just useful
idiots. But Trump is also corrupt and dangerous because he doesn't believe he is constrained
by anything. And Mitch keeps proving him right.
The cause goes back as far as Truman with roots all the way back to our nation's founding on
the shoulders of slaves and a trail of tears, but "the shattered norms of the last 10 years
that came from only one side" were the inevitable effect of a failed political system. When
the US government has no obvious external enemies and imminent threats then it must
manufacture them from within to maintain a meaningful commanding presence. Otherwise the
government would be tasked with solving our nation's social and economic problems, which
would be both costly and far too complicated for simple self-absorbed minds.
I disagree. What the problem is now is that non-whites and women have taken some power - and
in fact may be able to displace the white christian patriarchy (actually, I think as long as
we can hang onto a free and fair democracy this is inevitable) and the white christian
patriarchy is trying to rule from the minority via fascism and authoritarianism.
I could almost understand this obsession had you never left Indiana, presumably Indianapolis
or somewhere similar, but unlikely Gary. There is greater diversity in the US than just what
you have seen. Every picture tells a story, and it is a different story for each.
Overall the common ground that moves everyone everywhere is money, which in some cases is
just a proxy for power and in other cases is a means to material satisfaction. If one already
has power, then purchase can be had in reverse, money for power instead of power for money.
This is a great explaination of why we need 1. independent regulatory agencies with power, 2.
white collar crime enforcement 3. rule of law and most of all 4. an independent judiciary
that is not overrun by ideologues and theocrats who ignore the first amendment wholesale.
It would have been nice if Obama has demonstrated his concern for the rule of law by frog
marching banksters to Rikers, closing Guantanamo, and prosecuting CIA torturers.
But kurt is only concerned with the rule of law when his party is not in power typical
partisan hack.
I have been to every state except Alaska and have lived in the North East, Southwest,
Midwest, South and California. My comment was about power structures - and the patriarchy of
white supremacy and christianity. I am well aware of the diversity. Heck - I even lived next
to the Great Checkerboard for 3 summers.
"... Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way. ..."
The average demorat, aside from worshipping Ba'al and hating the constitution, is depraved,
been such since crooked Hillary forgot that the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering
liberals living on the coasts do not run the world.
"...the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering liberals living on the coasts do not run the
world."
[Who says that they do not? Certainly, it is close enough to that for government work.
Besides, in the end corporations and the interests of the donor class dictate the rules of
engagement for both illiberal and unconservative politicians. How the dogs of politics fight
over scraps thrown out for them should be of less interest to the wage class than who is
throwing out the scraps to them.]
Of course a former Air Force military hardware procurements officer likely knows no more
about present day life among the wage class than a banker. That would be like thinking that a
kid raised in poverty by the welfare state knew how to farm. Still, it is possible for either
one to be haunted by guilt late in life.
You are bound with your adversaries in ways known only to God, not a religious testimonial
but merely a proxy for the abstraction of omniscience. Some things can be seen as clear as
day and remain a complete mystery, to me at least.
At the very least Trump is guilty of being Trump. So, if you believe the charges against
Trump are Trumped up, then what else would you expect?
Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely
fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the
time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against
any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way.
The US Constitution was written and then rewritten repeatedly in blood going all the way
back to Apr 19, 1775. That is what it means to be an American, son, my Cherokee ancestors
notwithstanding.
"... This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy. Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad? ..."
"... And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable. ..."
"... Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most: if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big. ..."
From the founding of this country, the power of the president was understood to have
limits. Indeed, the Founders would never have written an impeachment clause into the
Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their descendants might need to remove
an elected president before the end of his term in order to protect the American people and
the nation.
The question before the country now is whether President Trump's misconduct is severe
enough that Congress should exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 2020
election. The results of the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, released to the public on
Tuesday, make clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the president abused his
power by trying to extort a foreign country to meddle in US politics, but he also has
endangered the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed the congressional
investigation into his conduct, a precedent that will lead to a permanent diminution of
congressional power if allowed to stand.
The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional system is more than sufficient,
and a slate of legal scholars who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions are
just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had in mind when they devised the
recourse of impeachment. The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with drafting
articles of impeachment is warranted.
Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee report, which was based on witness
interviews, documents, telephone records, and public statements by administration officials,
was already known to the public. The cohesive narrative that emerges, though, is worse than
the sum of its parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at his behest
repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, into taking steps to help the
president's reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In his dealings with
foreign states, the president has an obligation to represent America's interests, not his
own.
But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance that corrupt agenda. In order
to pressure Ukraine into acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 million
in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he demanded a bribe in the form of political
favors in exchange for an official act -- the textbook definition of corruption. The fact
that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle-blower complained, is immaterial: The act
of withholding taxpayer money to support a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse
of the president's power.
Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign policy. The United States provides
military aid to Ukraine to protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that fragile
young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is a key US policy goal, and one that the
president put at risk for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is willing to
corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of political gain, which will cast suspicion
on the motivations of the United States abroad if Congress does not act.
To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the scheme and started the
impeachment inquiry, the Trump administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed
witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. That ought to form the basis of
an article of impeachment. When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the
power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and will hobble future
oversight of presidents of all parties.
Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the
impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their
interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to maintain checks and balances in the
federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our
national interest instead of the president's personal needs; to control federal spending
through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign
interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What's at stake now
is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country's
core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations
to impeach him.
How can Trump have sabotaged American foreign policy, when he has full responsibility and
authority to set it?
IMO this impeachment is partly about Trump personally asking a foreign country for help
against a domestic political opponent. But it is mostly about geopolitics and the national
security bureaucracy's need for US world domination.
Just listen to the impeachment testimony--most of it is whining about Trump's failure to
follow the 'interagency' policies of the deep state.
Stalin would approve that. And if so, what is the difference between impeachment and a
show trial, Moscow trials style? The majority can eliminate political rivals, if it wishes
so, right? This was how Bolsheviks were thinking in 30th. Of course, those backward Soviets used "British spy" charge instead modern, sophisticated
"Putin's stooge" charge, but still ;-)
The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity
of our democracy.
This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all
progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy.
Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence
agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in
intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad?
In short Boston Globe editors do not want that their audience understand the situation, in
which the county have found itself. They just want to brainwash this audience (with impunity)
And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues
facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor
statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant
militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to
increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable.
Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most:
if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big.
Can you imagine result for Corporate Dems of Schiff (with his contacts with Ciaramella ) ,
or Hunter Biden (who was just a mule to get money to Biden's family for his father illegal
lobbing) testifying in Senate under oath.
The truth is that they are all criminals (with many being war criminals.) So Beria
statement "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" is fully applicable. That really is
something that has survived the Soviet Union and has arrived in the good old USA.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made no secret of her desire to pass the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement by the end of the year
Meanwhile, a top priority for labor has been sitting quietly on Pelosi's desk and, unlike
USMCA, already commands enough support to get it over the House finish line. The Protecting
the Right to Organize Act would be the most comprehensive rewrite of U.S. labor law in
decades. It would eliminate right-to-work laws, impose new penalties on employers who
retaliate against union organizing, crack down on worker misclassification, and establish new
rules so that employers cannot delay negotiating collective bargaining contracts." https://theintercept.com/2019/12/02/nancy-pelosi-usmca-pro-act-unions/
Echoes of 2009, when Pelosi refused to pass union card check, when it had already passed
the House in 2007? The difference? In 2007 Bush would have vetoes. In 2009, Democrats had the
votes and a Democratic president, so they chose to ignore their campaign promise.
'Senate Intel Committee Chairman @SenatorBurr: "Every
elected official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton. Is that very different than the
Russians being for Donald Trump?"
"You considered Russia meddling with just the preference they had before you knew the rest
of it. Apply the same standard to Ukraine. The President can say that they meddled because they
had a preference, the elected officials, that's not the current people."
Q: Is there any evidence that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election? BURR: I don't think
there's any question that elected officials in Ukraine had a favorite in the election.
Q: Would you consider that meddling? BURR: I mean, you'll have to define meddling, but that
was something that was publicly out there.'
The interview concluded with a long passage in which Burr does some tap-dancing that would
have shamed the Nicholas Brothers.
And the interview itself is even more preposterous given the news that the very committee
that Burr chairs already has dismissed the whole Ukrainian fantasy has groundless....
Even Burr now is parroting the absurd notion that a preference for Hillary Rodham Clinton on
the part of the Ukrainian leadership in 2016 -- a preference they shared with practically every
other government on the planet, then and now -- is somehow mysteriously equivalent to the
Russian ratfcking. They're all lost now, amazingly so. It will confound future historians, who
will wander through whatever's left, kicking the rubble ahead of them and wondering how
everybody had been so easily turned."
"... Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... According to White House visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives: ..."
December 2015 was a pivotal month in many respects...
During the first week of December 2015, Donald Trump began to establish a substantial
lead over his
Republican primary opponents.
Vice President Joseph Biden traveled to Ukraine to announce, on
December 7th, a $190 million program to "fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the
justice sector," but behind the scenes explicitly linked a $1 billion loan guarantee to the
firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating the energy company
Burisma, which employed Biden's son Hunter.
On December 9, 2015, the reported whistleblower Eric Ciaramella held a meeting in Room 236
of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the
Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, which was 59%- funded by Barack Obama's State Department
and the International Renaissance Foundation, a George Soros organization.
Also attending that meeting was Catherine Newcombe, attorney in the Criminal Division,
Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice, where,
among other duties, she oversaw the Department's legal assistance programs to Ukraine.
By December 2015, Paul Manafort was undoubtedly considering approaching the Trump campaign
to rejuvenate his U.S. political bona fides and mitigate the legal and financial difficulties he was
experiencing at the time.
From the beginning of his association with the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, a long-time
Manafort partner, made a strong case to Trump to bring in
Manafort, who would officially connect to the campaign
immediately after the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.
Based on events occurring during the same period, were Obama Deep State operatives aware of
Manafort's intent and already intending to use his past questionable practices and links to
Russia against Trump?
Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began
in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for
example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for
Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by
the Mueller investigation.
According to White House
visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of
Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives:
To coerce the Ukrainians to drop the Burisma probe , which involved Vice President Joseph
Biden's son Hunter, and allow the FBI to take it over the investigation.
To reopen a closed 2014 FBI investigation that focused heavily on GOP lobbyist Paul
Manafort , whose firm long had been tied to Trump through his partner and Trump pal, Roger
Stone.
That is, contain the investigation of Biden's son and ramp up the investigation of Paul
Manafort.
Again, according to White House
logs , the attendees at the January 19, 2016 meeting in Room 230A of the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building were:
Eric Ciaramella - National Security Council Director for Ukraine
Liz Zentos - National Security Council Director for Eastern Europe
David G. Sakvarelidze - Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine
Nazar A. Kholodnitsky, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor
Catherine L. Newcombe - attorney in the Criminal Division, Office of Overseas
Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice
Svitlana V. Pardus – Operations, Department of Justice, U.S. Embassy, Ukraine.
Artem S. Sytnyk - Director of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine
Andriy G. Telizhenko, political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC
Jeffrey W. Cole - Resident Legal Advisor at U.S. Embassy Ukraine, presumed to be FBI
Just two weeks after that meeting, on February 2, 2016, according to White
House logs , Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting in Room 374 of the Eisenhower Executive
Office, which seems to be a planning session to re-open an investigation of Paul Manafort
(Note: one of the crimes of which Manafort was accused was money laundering, an area covered by
the Department of the Treasury). The attendees were:
Jose Borrayo - Acting Section Chief, Office of Special Measures, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Julia Friedlander - Senior Policy Advisor for Europe, Office of Terrorist Financing and
Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Michael Lieberman - Deputy Assistant Secretary, Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes,
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Scott Rembrandt - Anti-Money Laundering Task Force, Assistant Director/Director, Office
of Strategic Policy, Department of the Treasury
Justin Rowland - Special Agent (financial crimes), Federal Bureau of Investigation
It appears that Paul Manafort became a vehicle by which the Obama Deep State operatives
could link Trump to nefarious activities involving Russians, which eventually evolved into the
Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
Remember, the key claim of the follow-up Steele dossier, the centerpiece of the Mueller
investigation, was that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was the focal point of a
"well-developed conspiracy between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership."
Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS employee and wife of Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, not
only worked with Christopher Steele on the so-called Trump dossier, but, in May 2016, was the
conduit of information to her husband and two Department of Justice prosecutors of the
existence of the "black ledger" documents that contributed to Manafort's prosecution.
Bruce Ohr and Steele attempted to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg
Deripaska, efforts that eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked
Deripaska if he could provide information to prove that Manafort was helping Trump collude with
Russia.
The surveillance and entrapment attempts of Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos
and others were designed to collect evidence about Trump
without formally documenting that Trump was the target.
After the election, to cover their tracks, James Comey, representing the FBI and the
Department of Justice, misleadingly told Trump that the investigation was about
Russia and a few stray people in his campaign, but they assured him he personally was not under
investigation.
They lied.
Donald Trump always was, and still is, the target of the Deep State , the left-wing media
and their Democrat Party collaborators.
Exiting the news conference as she was addressed, Pelosi turned around, walked up to the
journalist -- James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcast Group -- and proceeded to wag her finger with
scorn.
"As a Catholic, I resent you using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me,"
she said. "Don't mess with me when it comes to words like that."
To Republicans eager to paint Democrats as out-of-control partisans, the forceful rebuttal
was a sign of the speaker losing her grip.
"It's caused them to lose sight of why they got the majority," House Minority Whip Steve
Scalise (R-La.) said of impeachment and Pelosi's outburst. "I think things are starting to
unravel."
... ... ...
Indeed, Pelosi also has cast the constitutional clash in terms of defending
an ally against Russia, calling the concerns raised by the whistleblower complaint the "aha
moment" and repeating a phrase that she used in challenging Trump face-to-face at the White
House in October.
"All roads lead to Putin," she told reporters.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA officer who was among the "national security
freshmen" who pushed Pelosi toward supporting an impeachment inquiry, praised her handling of
the process. From the beginning, she said, she asked Pelosi to ensure that the investigation
was done in a strategic, efficient and serious manner, and she said Pelosi has followed
through.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
"... Lev Golinkin explained in The Nation a few months ago that the release of that ledger by Leshchenko and NABU was an important event -- and a direct intervention in the election. "The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as head of Trump's campaign. The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that Manafort -- and therefore Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin," he wrote. "Manafort was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere without NABU and Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it gets." ..."
"... But three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media and political establishment. What used to be fact is now smeared as either a pro-Trump rightwing conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda -- and probably both. But saying that it didn't happen doesn't change the historical record. ..."
"... Yasha Levine is an investigative journalist and a founding editor of The eXiled Online. His latest book is "Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet." ..."
Not only did it happen, it was written up as fact by establishment papers and outlets as
varied as Yahoo, Politico and The Financial Times, reports Yasha Levine.
I know I've written about
this before, but I feel like I have to address it again -- seeing how just about every
impeachment witness has repeated the claim that meddling by Ukrainian government officials did
not happen in 2016 and that anyone who says otherwise is spreading toxic Russian propaganda.
I've been dipping into these hearings every now and again and I've seen this said over and
over. It reminds me of those new age quantum-mind-over-matter types in the "The Secret:"
Repeat the mantra often enough and convince yourself it's true and it is!
Let's start with a fact: Meddling in the 2016 election by Ukrainian politicians and
government agencies happened.
The above is true and no amount of denial is going to change that. What's more: Ukrainian
nationals didn't just meddle on their own, they also worked with Americans -- including
Ukrainian-American political operatives on the payroll of the Democratic Party. Not only
did all this happen, it was written up as fact by establishment papers and outlets as varied as
Yahoo , Politico
, and TheFinancial Times in
2016 on the eve of the election. ( See this by me here
.)
One of the best examples of this is the
plot to take down Paul Manafort -- the sleazy Republican political consultant who had long
worked in Ukraine and who headed Donald's Trump campaign.
In 2016, Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament and an anti-corruption activist
(who got embroiled in his own corruption scandal), coordinated the release of a handwritten
ledger. The document purported to show off-the-book payments made to Manafort from the Party of
the Regions -- the political arm of the Viktor Yanukovich, the Ukrainian president who had been
overthrown in a coup-type revolt by a much more Western-friendly political faction. The ledger
itself was released by NABU, a Ukrainian government anti-corruption organization set up as
result of prodding by the Obama administration and which was
run with the backing and financial support of the FBI .
(As an aside: NABU -- which also got embroiled into its own political corruption scandal --
also happens to be at the heart of an internal Ukrainian political fight that sucked in
ex-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. But that's a different and
complicated story . And then there's the weird angle of the FBI being so closely involved
with NABU at a time when this Ukrainian anti-corruption agency decided to involve itself in an
American election.)
Anyway, Leshchenko -- a foreign politician -- made clear that his objective at the time was
to kill off Trump's candidacy. That's a direct admission of meddling. As Oleksiy Kuzmenko has
documented so well, Leshchenko repeated this statement in various ways in both English and
Ukraine over and over again.
Lev Golinkin explained in TheNationa few months ago that the
release of that ledger by Leshchenko and NABU was an important event -- and a direct
intervention in the election. "The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as
head of Trump's campaign. The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that
Manafort -- and therefore Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin," he wrote. "Manafort
was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere
without NABU and Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it
gets."
But three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media
and political establishment. What used to be fact is now smeared as either a pro-Trump
rightwing conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda -- and probably both. But saying that it
didn't happen doesn't change the historical record.
Mark Ames makes a very good point: All this outside meddling didn't swing the election, but
it did help us learn something useful about our own political process. The hacking of email
accounts belonging to the John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee revealed to
Americans the corruption of the Democratic Party, including the way that the primaries are run.
And leaks about Manafort revealed the corruption inside Trump campaign (if anyone doubted it in
the first place) and ultimately sent a corrupt scumbag lobbyist to jail for tax evasion.
But this burst of transparency hasn't done much good. Instead of reckoning with the
fundamental rot in our political establishment and our political culture, all we've gotten is
this non-stop selective outrage -- a spectacle that puts Trump and his cronies and a foreign
power at the center of everything that's wrong domestically in America. But the problems are
larger than Trump and they sure are larger than whatever foreign meddling may have occurred --
whether from Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Israel, or any of the other foreign and business
interests that are constantly jockeying to sway the world's most powerful empire.
Manafort did million dollar deals with the Podestas for over 10 years -- then offered to
work for Trump for free.
Daniel , December 5, 2019 at 09:08
I am a daily reader of this site and have always had a healthy skepticism of the
propaganda emanating from corporate media, but I am really struggling with this
Ukraine-interfered vs. that's-a-debunked-conspiracy-theory conflict. Corporate media is
really losing it's mind on this one with virtually ALL of it shaming and shutting down anyone
who acknowledges past reporting on this issue, as here. What is going on? How can one party
tell a story that is (seemingly) obviously true and another claim that it never happened? Do
the facts in this article and previous reporting have nothing to do with the 'debunked
conspiracy theory' we are being shamed about? Are these two separate stories? Or is objective
truth being ghosted out of existence now? I fear the latter.
The propaganda hyper-drive that corporate media has accelerated since Clinton's 2016
defeat has been quite astonishing to witness and a bit of a shock to me, even with all my
skepticism. But it is now apparent to me that there is no depth too low for our corporate
controllers to sink when tasked with defending their corrupt, violent, self-serving status
quo. Trump is too much of a wild card on some points for these folks, it seems, so of course
they feel he must be taken down. (On other points, they play right along as he delivers some
of the benefits they feel their positions have privileged them.)
And, despite my own feeling that the man is unfit for office and could rightly be
impeached on any number of counts, the degradation of our discourse in service of this right
now – and the slim propaganda-confused Ukraine shoulders upon which it is being laid
– is absolutely sickening to me, and seems wildly off the mark. It is, however, giving
those who benefit from our corrupt system a strong feeling of self-righteousness. So there's
that.
Wonder not why Trump's supporters aren't jumping ship (Schiff?). They can smell the BS as
well as anybody.
Eugenie Basile , December 5, 2019 at 04:44
Watched the house judiciary hearing yesterday on CNN. Do the analysts on the Jake Tapper
panel really believe all viewers of CNN have not one functioning brain cell left ?
What was clear yesterday is that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.
When even the chairman of the judiciary committee doesn't respect the principles of Law and
Justice, ordering his committee to rubberstamp the partisan report of the Intel committee
without any direct factchecking and possibility for minority members to call directly
involved witnesses, this impeachment becomes void of any legitimacy.
The three pro impeachment Law professors were so blinded by their Anti Trump feelings, they
didn't even realise the danger that this disastrous precedent will create.
DH Fabian , December 3, 2019 at 12:29
We see the same familiar phrases, "catch words," used throughout to sell Russia-gate, as
if all of it has been written by a single small group of people. We see the same claims that
someone said or wrote something that proves there was some INTENT to "meddle," this was
confirmed by (list pro-Democrat sources), and therefore Russia/Ukraine stole the election!
Meddle? How? This began with the Clinton campaign team claiming that Russia hacked into
voting machines across the country, a claim that media repeatedly stated was true. Proof?
Other media said it was true! Except that an extensive investigation of voting machines
across the country proved that it wasn't. No matter, just keep spinning the tale, weaving in
threads of Ukraine-gate in recent months. What does this "meddling" consist of? We still
don't know. They didn't invade the US and overthrow the government, didn't wage a massive
propaganda campaign -- although all of us who dared to criticize Clinton & Co. were
accused of being "foreign operatives." They didn't hack into voting machines, and efforts to
find the alleged "voter fraud" (on anyone's behalf) fell flat. They no longer even bother
trying to show that X did Y, invalidating the election results.
Go back to the 2016 election results. In spite of so much Dem voter opposition to the
Clinton right wing, Hillary Clinton got the most votes. Why did Russia and/or Ukraine try so
hard to get her into the White House? Never mind that, just keep repeating the allegations.
(Trump is president because he got the most electoral voted, something a foreign entity
couldn't influence, hack into, steal, etc., etc.)
Buddy , December 5, 2019 at 12:36
The George Constanza theory at work. "It's not a lie if you believe it." Oh how sad and
true that is. So many people prefer to believe a lie than accept the truth.
Piotr Berman , December 3, 2019 at 10:56
What is the latest on the authenticity of the "hand-written ledger" and Manafort payments?
After all, NABU investigators had a lot of adversaries and aimed to "ugrobit'" them (word
from Leshchenko tweet, "send to their tombs").
michael , December 4, 2019 at 04:20
I heard on the radio that 'the Ukraine did NOT interfere in the 2016 Election"; it has
been "debunked", just like Biden corruption there. There is no corruption in Ukraine,
officially. The Establishment has backed up all the coup-born Ukrainians, Ukrainian
Americans, "Anti-Corruption" Agencies and American Ambassadors who, despite published and
videoed facts from the last three or more years, now will tell you there was "no
interferference, no Black Ledger" of fake handwritten notes that has now disappeared ("no
evidence, no crime"). The Ukrainians had nothing to do with Manafort being toppled as Trump's
Campaign Manager, despite all the evidence to the contrary (evidently invented by the
Russians!!!) The US Establishment wants enough skirmishes with Russia on the Ukraine border
"to the last Ukrainian" to sell arms, based on loans that will never be repaid, with
politicians and their minions (not just Manafort!) lining their pockets.
Just watched Tim Canova's interview with Jimmy Dore from a few days ago. He ran in both 2016
and 2018. His story is a microcosm of what the Establishment has done to election integrity
in America. It is a joke. Once the Establishment silences alt media, there is no point in
having elections.
If you define "meddling" as "anything said or done by a non-US person that may somehow
influence a US voter" then by that standard just about every country out there "meddles" in
US elections.
The difference between Russian "meddling" and Ukrainian "meddling" is that the Ukrainian
flavor is welcomed by the US establishment.
Josep , December 4, 2019 at 18:19
I think it has something to do with the way Ukraine, like Georgia, is seen as a "victim"
of what is touted as "Russian aggression" thanks to its relatively smaller size, though your
guess is as good as mine.
Exiled reader , December 3, 2019 at 10:26
I'm surprised to see Mark Ames (and Yasha) allow that Russia "interfered" in the election,
especially in the context of WikiLeaks. Where is the evidence that Assange was some sort of
Kremlin cut-out?
Is this just a case of bowing slightly to the prevailing winds to prove a larger point, ie,
western presstitutes are incapable of dialectical thinking? Understandable but be careful,
1st thing you're making little concessions to establishment thinking, the next thing your
shilling for forever wars.
Bob Van Noy , December 3, 2019 at 09:39
As usual thank you CD.
"What's more: Ukrainian nationals didn't just meddle on their own, they also worked with
Americans -- including Ukrainian-American political operatives on the payroll of the
Democratic Party."
Many thanks Yasha Levine your statement above says it all and it's terribly important that
America understands that
michael , December 3, 2019 at 07:29
Of course the politicians of Ukraine worked openly with Ukrainian Americans and DNC
members to knock Manafort out as the head of Trump's campaign. These were locusts and
parasites who came into power based on the American-backed coup, and they were eager to show
their fealty to Hillary, and to Biden, as they stole everything that wasn't nailed down,
similar to the plague of Americans who descended on Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed.
The median income of Ukrainians dropped over half after the coup; their culture of
corruption, unlike that of their Ukrainian American overlords, is necessary to the bottom
Ukrainians survival. So they bragged, wanting the world and particularly Hillary to know that
Ukraine had interfered on her side in the Election. The facts are clear and straightforward,
as the author notes (although there is too much incredulity in his tone. Maybe he reads MSM
and is confused?)
However we will not see a three year investigation of Hillary and Biden being in the pocket
of Ukraine; that Russiagate nonsense was just a ruse to undercut America while they worked to
get their agendas back on track. They are the Establishment politicians, they are Democrats
of an administration who brought about coups and wars, and they want their monetary rewards
from these actions, as do the FBI, State Department and CIA (in a more institutional sense)
who crossed the red Hatch Act line to support political candidates (Hillary and Biden) in our
now banana republic. The Establishment have been pushing neolib/neocon agendas since at least
Bill Clinton, with ample support from Bush II (the groundwork) and particularly since Obama
(who was able to greatly expand both the domestic police state and the Empire). They do not
want some outsider, even the incompetent demagogue Trump, interfering in their best laid
plans, and in their consensus community foreign policies. This has nothing to do with America
per se, this is about extending their corrupt profitable dreams which are coming together
after 20+ years of preparations.
" three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media
and political establishment."
But everything important in the United States is treated that way now. Everything.
America has conducted more than 15 years of aggressive war in the Middle East, and you'd
be hard put to find a single honest article about any of it in a mainline American
publication or a story on air by broadcast journalism.
America just conducted a coup against an elected government in Bolivia, attempted another,
again against an elected government, in Venezuela, and is heavily pressuring the governments
of Cuba and Nicaragua. What you see in America's mainline press is not what has happened.
And the nasty Bolsonaro government in Brazil definitely represents fiddling with the
country's institutions, including its courts, but you won't read that in America's press.
Children are being hurt by lack of medicines and foodstuff in Iran, a country which done
absolutely nothing illegal, yet that land of eighty million is just ignored, except for
unwarranted insults. Never once are any of its leaders – including some highly
intelligent and civil men like the President and the Foreign Minister – interviewed or
allowed to make their case.
A creepy outfit like the White Helmets in Syria receives nothing but admiration in
America's press, even though its main job has been to create pressure for increased
bombing.
America's huge fleet of drones, each carrying Hellfire missiles, works day and night to
kill people in many places without the least pretence of legality or justice. Try finding the
victims' faces in the press. Try finding stories about the bizarre buzz-cut CIA workers who
sit at computer screens playing electronic games with live human beings.
Doing that would represent a bit of what Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange did, and just
look at their fates.
If it weren't for alternative and foreign press on the Internet, we'd know little about
any of these things and far more. But even those sources are limited. All the Western
European mainline press is under the same thumb. The Guardian or the BBC read like they were
written in Langley Virginia when it comes to such matters.
Russian sources are constantly attacked and vilified and threated. Outfits like Google,
Washington's willing helpers, now make it hard even to find legitimate alternate news
sources. And what those sources write gets buried in search results. Wikipedia has armies of
folks writing articles now in the same vein as those of the mainline press.
The United States literally does not make any sense anymore. Contradictions all the time.
No logic, no honest words ever come from officials or the press about any important
matter.
That is the just the nature of being at the center of a brutal empire, one engaged in
countless dark and dishonest activities, not ready to be observed, and certainly not
criticized, in any of them.
Correcting the record is almost meaningless anymore. As is speaking the truth on almost
any important matter.
Look at Tulsi Gabbard and how she is treated by the establishment, including that of her
own party.
She's the only Democratic candidate even saying a few honest things, and she is abused or
ignored or brushed aside.
Those who speak to establishment interests are given daily headline coverage, as Biden or
Warren, even though they have nothing to say that is new or helpful or even honest.
It really is a losing battle.
The Inner Party has a small army of Outer Party workers constantly writing and rewriting
Oceania's current events and recent history. Computers make the work easier and more
efficient than ever.
I think the quality of truth in America today makes Donald Trump a perfect representative
of the country. In many ways the perfect President. Full of contradictions and confusion,
given to bellowing and virtually never telling the truth.
michael , December 3, 2019 at 18:34
Agree that this is representative of the American character. Disagree that it is a recent
phenomenon. Americans killed off 15 to 20% of North Koreans in the Korean War (that
percentage would equate to 50-60 million Americans), and killed 2.5 to 4 million in Southeast
Asia (with quite a bit of CIA involvement in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. George HW Bush (who
headed and was active with the CIA) ran the Iran Contra drug running scheme to get Reagan
elected with the October Surprise, killing any Latin Americans who opposed his Freedom
Fighters. Clinton's sanctions killed 500,000 kids in Iraq and Albright noted "we think the
price is worth it"; Clinton had no interest in the Rwanda genocide. The seven Forever Wars
will likely multiply under Trump or his successor. That's where the money is.
9/11 supposedly happened because the CIA failed to "turn" Khalid al Mihdhar, who was also
heavily involved with Saudi spooks. The CIA always escape any accountability or
responsibility. Most of the CIA involved with "mistakes" of 9/11 were promoted despite
(because?) of their illegal actions, which led to the Patriot Act, and forever wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, joined now by Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine and
Honduras. Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" showed the basic model; the CIA, his
"jackals", have become less covert, their visibility projects power. The principals and goals
are the same.
More and more domestic actions will occur at the hands of the CIA, and their propaganda is
passed down by the MSM on any important issue. The CIA is the Gestapo of the American Police
State. Elected politicians are just clowns for entertainment.
Caitlin Johnstone just published an article this morning about despair. It is an
inevitable emotion for those of us who know the truth about the current state of affairs.
Keep soldiering on John, your words have value. Who knows how many eyes are being opened
every day by your efforts? And in the end we could never live with ourselves if we just quit
the game.
In some ways Trump is the perfect President for making the desperation of the Deep State
more visible to the average person. There is less faith in the MSM today than there ever was
before. It's a starting point.
ML , December 4, 2019 at 22:29
Good post, Mr. Chuckman. Try and keep a sense of humor to ward off despair. Your post
reminded me of one of my favorite H. L. Mencken quotes regarding who Americans elect as their
presidents:
"All the odds are on the man who is intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre- the man who
can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends,
year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office of the President
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious
day, the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts's desire at last and the White House
will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken
robert e williamson jr , December 5, 2019 at 17:47
Perfect read on it being what it is.
Hunter S. Thompson described the dumbing down of America in his 1990 "SONGS OF THE DOOMED"
.
He was right and we now see the effects of the demise of American acceptable set of
values. Far too many Americans have bull shitted themselves for far too long and it
shows.
Americans get what government they demand no more no less. The bar is pretty close to
touching the ground right now.
Some Americans want a malcontent, despot, bully to push "the other " around and Trump is
proving it by playing to his base.
The far too many of rest of Americans could care less just as long as nobody screws up
their good deal.
This should be interesting and may become painful enough to enough Americans that some
real progress and change can happen.
We need to hope that this happens by ballot rather than by bullet.
Eugenie Basile , December 3, 2019 at 04:20
A general warning for all viewers of the impeachment hearings: this is a political process
that has no factual value. The witnesses are nothing more than politicized instruments for
either political party.
Congress being under control of the democrats, we got their version As soon as the procedure
is passed to the Senate, the republicans will take control.
The timing should be a bonus for the reelection of Trump . seems the DNC has learned nothing
from their 2016 defeat.
Hmmm , December 3, 2019 at 00:49
I think most of the politicians, press, and pundits can and do hold both thoughts in their
head. They just lie about it shamelessly. Take Fiona Hill -- she certainly knows better. But
she's an anti-Russian ideologue, on top of which she knows that her reputation in the proper
circles now depends on promoting one of the two thoughts and dismissing the other. (Indeed,
the mainstream press has been fawning over her as a "heroine" since her testimony.)
Some people with influence may genuinely be unable to understand. But even with them, it's
mostly what Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
his salary depends on his not understanding it."
There's no price to be paid for this lie. An article in Consortium News, or even The
Nation -- while commendable and most welcome, to be sure -- doesn't do the trick. Similar
points made in conservative outlets get dismissed as pro-Trump propaganda.
Anyway, it's nice to run across a piece like this as a sanity check.
Piotr Berman , December 3, 2019 at 11:12
"An article in Consortium News, or even The Nation -- while commendable and most welcome,
to be sure -- doesn't do the trick. "
The outcome of these revelations is hard to foresee, but currently they are amplified by
Fox News and other pro-Republican media. War liberals of the Democratic Party getting
squeezed from both sides. Trump does not have many talents, but I know no one better at
making adversaries look stupid, while getting away with inane rants -- a trick that never
ceases to amaze me.
A tragedy is that by focusing on Russia, Democrats take oxygen away from other fires they
should tend, pretty much like in 2016.
Excellent, but I was surprised to see the words "The hacking of email accounts belonging
to the John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee," when CN has well documented
articles that it was an insider leak and not a hack. We need to squash the myth of hacking
whenever we can.
Eugenie Basile , December 3, 2019 at 04:25
The Guccifer2 was definitely a hack with some Cyrillic traces ..( bit too obvious )
jdd , December 2, 2019 at 19:40
Robert Mueller's babbling notwithstanding, the VIPS have proven through uncontroverted
forensic analysis, that Popdesta's email account, like that of Hillary Clinton, was leaked
not hacked. As Julian Assange, who is slowly being murdered in a British prison, has
repeatedly stated, he did not receive the emails from "a state actor." Yet the truth of what
they revealed was, among other things, that the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign to
rig the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton to be a craven puppet of
Wall Street. The big lie of "Russian hacking" needs to be fully exposed, as it sits at the
very heart of the Russiagate narrative, and is the basis for all the lies that followed..
Jeff Harrison , December 2, 2019 at 19:22
The truth is that lots of countries meddle in large and small ways and in effective and
ineffective ways. The biggest meddler is Israel. Without US support, Israel would be a small
piece of pea gravel on a hot asphalt road with a full sized steam roller headed her way. So
they control the direction of the steam roller. The only countries that don't meddle in
American politics are countries that don't care what the US does. There aren't many of those.
Companies hire lobbyists to meddle in Congressional decisions so that the government will
issue edicts that favor their business over the people. Countries do the same thing.
Sometimes they skip the lobbyist and do it themselves. Only Americans are stupid enough to
think that it doesn't happen. We have recently seen a parade of Americans who are that stupid
and worse, they don't seem to realize that the US has been doing that and worse all over the
world.
Jb , December 3, 2019 at 06:44
Amen!!
AnneR , December 3, 2019 at 07:33
Jeff – So true. I would only add that what Americans decry in other (usually, you
know, those "lesser" countries of Africa, Asia and MENA) as rank corruption and blatant
bribery is so well-established, deeply rooted, and by all appearances legalized in this
country, particularly in DC that for the general population, whose voices, needs and
desperation go totally unheeded (no money to sway Congressional minds), the lobbying, the
really existing political meddling by such countries as Israel (Occupied Palestine) and, I
would also add, the UK, is normal. And not the bribery, conniving, interference and
corruption that it really, truly is.
As for the well-educated bourgeoisie – they have, largely, benefited from the
results of that bribery and corruption. Until the Strumpet pipped Killary to the post. (Not
that they've not continued enjoy their self-presumed merited lifestyles even under him.)
And it is abundantly clear that repeating the lies (even, especially when they are known
to be lies by those controlling and disseminating the stories), obfuscating the truth by
avoidance of those topics that the ruling elites want to remain unnoticed, has not only
increased in the MSM but also continues to be believed by large swathes of the bourgeoisie
who consider themselves to be "progressive," "left-wing," and who are juggling which Demrat
candidate to vote for while ignoring what some candidates, at least, have voted *for* in
Congress.
"This was a debate over policy. Trump's critics may not have liked the policy he was
pushing. But as former Defense Intelligence Agency official Pat Lang noted on his blog last
week,
the statute in question applies only to "intelligence activities" but "does not include
differences of opinions concerning public policy matters."
That's what this fight is about, said Lang . Speaker after speaker at the hearings asserted
that Trump's views did not comport with official national policy. But the president sets that
policy, Lang said, not the diplomats.
"They think they are the people who set national policy and the president is this figurehead
who is guided by all these people around him who agree on everything," he said. "The president
doesn't need to use the State Department at all to conduct foreign policy." ' Paul Mulshine
-------------
Actually, I was too minimal in speaking of "diplomats." Vindman is not a diplomat and there
are many other actors in this drama of Borgist angst (foreign policy establishment ) who are
not diplomats.
For one thing a large percentage of the Drones at the State Department are civil service
employees rather than Foreign Service Officers, and although they do not play well together
they agree on the ultimate authority of the Supremacy Clause (non-existent) in the US
Constitution that gives the State Department dominion over all the Lord created. A career
ambassador's wife once lectured me that the US Army should change the cap badge that officers
wear because it looks too much like the Great Seal of the United States which in the State
Department can only be displayed by Ambassadors. I told her that she should petition the
Secretary of the Army in this matter.
Various departments of government, media, academia, thinktankeries, etc., all have heavy
infestations of folks who went to graduate school together in poly sci in all its branches, or
who wish to be thought worthy of such attendance. They specialize in group think, conformity,
and conformism, even to the solemn dress they affect. The four in hand tie knot is pretty much
mandatory for serious consideration for inclusion in the Borg. It indicates a certain preppy
insouciance and faux disregard for details of dress.
Trump's casual disregard for all that enrages the Borg who thought they had "won it all"
long ago and that they would have a Borgist neocon to deal with in Hillary.
Hillary's Foundation has lost millions recently, which has Hillary pursing her lips like
she's been using a lemon for her lipstick. I mean, worse than fish-lips, Hillary's pursing
expression.
Too bad that we can't form some cement shoes for the Borg and toss them into the east
river AKA the Atlantic, or send them back to hell from where they originated!
OT:
This afternoon my wife and I turned on the TV to watch football. We were flipping through
channels and came upon some local ABC affiliate (WMUR) which had on a documentary which
mentioned the Medal of Honor and a Catholic chaplain in Vietnam. Needless to say we stayed on
that channel. Long story short, it was one of the most powerful things we've ever watched. We
were both in tears by the end (nb: I don't cry easily) and we were changed from having
watched it. We immediately went online to purchase copies for family members. It was recently
released.
As the Borg like to say "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our
own." They have done this with the four in hand tie knot which was previously worn by giants
like George Kennon and Chip Bohlen. Yet now, the midgetry prevails.
Colonel...This is another Reason why I appreciate your levels of Experience and knowledge
with SST..Thank you for doing that...I always come away with New Insight..and Understanding
of Real Dynamics..what has Progressively Developed inside the State.Department.with its
Influence On so Much POLICY...and .is as You say...The BORG..and Their Own Culture.your
Article put that all into a Big Picture for Me..(Connecting the Data..) .It.as you aptly
Described. is a Universal.Sect..and...At The National Level...They are Cyber Borgs..Shciff
Shapers..and that Whole Colony has Been Exposed.,,, Bad Products and All....
Fiona Hill appears to be part of the Borg, not really sure which part she's affiliated.
Some have called her a 'sleeper agent', but a sleeper for whom? British Intelligence agent of
influence? Or an Israeli agent of influence, or maybe a Daniel Pipes trained NEOCON agent of
influence? Any way one spins it, Fiona Hill has been undermining POTUS Trump while she was
part of his NSC and his advisory team. Why her intense hatred of Putin? Does he happen to
know through his nation's intelligence exactly who she is and whom she may be working on
behalf of? The Skripal incident showed just how much that the British Government and Crown
hate Russia. But why the intense British hatred of Russia, why?
Questions, so many questions regarding Ms. Hill and who she really works for.
"... Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed. https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 … ..."
"... So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17? ..."
"'Our Democracy Is at Stake.' Pelosi Orders Democrats to Draft Articles of Impeachment
Against Trump" [ Time ]. With autoplay video.
""The President abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of
our national security by withholding military aid and a crucial Oval Office meeting in
exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival." • So now when
a President doesn't allow The Blob to dictate Ukraine policy it's an impeachable offense?
Really? Yasha Levine quotes Democrat impeachment witness Karlan (see below) but the point is
the same:
Yasha Levine ✔ @yashalevine
Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon
against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or
suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed.
https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 …
So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our
national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17?
"Read opening statements from witnesses at the House Judiciary hearing" [
Politico ]. "Democrats' impeachment witnesses at Wednesday's judiciary committee hearing
plan to say in their prepared remarks that President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine were
the worst examples of misconduct in presidential history." • So again, it's all about
Ukraine. I feel like I've entered an alternate dimension. Aaron Maté comments:
My very subjective impression: I've skimmed three, and read Turley. Karlan, in particular,
is simply not a serious effort. Turley may be wrong -- a ton of tribal dunking on Twitter --
but at least he's making a serious effort. I'm gonna have to wait to see if somebody, say at
Lawfare, does a serious effort on Turley. Everything I've read hitherto is and posturing and
preaching to the choir. (Sad that Larry Tribe has so completely discredited himself, but that's
where we are.)
Lambert, while Trump was unable to complete his attempt to extort the President of
Ukraine, as someone who practiced the criminal law for 34 years, let me be the first to clue
you in to the concept in the criminal law of the inchoate offense . This is
criminal law, not contract law.
An inchoate offense includes an attempt, a conspiracy, and the solicitation of a crime.
All focus on the state of mind of the perpetrator, and none require that the offense be
completed -- only that a person or persons having the required criminal intent took material
steps toward completing the crime. Such a person becomes a principal in the contemplated
crime, and in the eyes of the law is just as guilty as if he or she had completed the
attempted offense.
(The details of Trump's offense differ from what David in Santa Cruz said they would be.)
"Inchoate" appears only in Turley's piece, indicating, to me, that his was the only serious
effort.
Well, that was "A Warning", for sure! The anonymous author of this tell all, Trump outter,
goes on to proclaim "we must look deeper at the roots of the present disorder, which is why I
have written this book."
Based on his/hers opening salvo, I proceeded with an open mind and hoped a first hand
accounting of events would give me something more, something new, something unbiased...after
reading every single word, I'm not sure what to think any more.
"A Warning", by Anonymous, is a well written political volume that speaks clearly, and
authoritatively concerning the events that take place in the White House and with our
president, Donald J. Trump. They have avoided all the histrionics that fill the tomes offered
by most of the media members. There's plenty of passion and urgency behind what's being said
it's just not crazed which for me, lends it an air of veracity. I'm settled for 60% of the
discourse.
By chapter 5 my opinion of the author's recanting about the details of the POTUS's daily
events has begun to become suspect and I'm starting to get that feeling that something is
"off". I read on trying to keep my open mind, feelings at bay. It's not easy because the
stories being told are starting to take on a schoolyard tenor such as: listing snippets of
twitter tweets (only the "bad"parts), highlighting his inadequacies as a statesman/politician
(DJT never claimed to be more than a businessman). It's not wrong to mention these things,
it's the spirit in how it's done and the vacuum.
This is about the time that anonymous' logic becomes unfounded, for me; a Venn diagraming
dilemma of if-then, WHAT?
Positing that POTUS has such a weakness for strong men that he would make egregious
blunders of national security, as well as waffle on business and finance issues just doesn't
make sense. Sorry. If for no other reason than his sheer business acumen, I'm rejecting this
premise. Yes, he blunders on with lack of finesse in the deportment and statesman columns
but...nope.
"A Warning" continues on pretty much in this manner, more and more juvenile until we end
up firmly in the land of snark with chapter seven and "The Apologists" where the author in
his anonymity proclaims how we can identify the various flavors of apologists, all they think
and feel and all they need to do-to get , be and do better; presumptuous, IMHO. I'm sure
snark wasn't the intended goal but it's how I arrived, for me.
All things considered, the writing and publishing are excellent. For the first half of the
book, I was impressed with the author's ability to detail the story, taking the high road.
The road got lonely along the way and anonymous veered to the access road, never joining
yellow journalism highway to deliver "A Warning" 📚
A lot of reviewers are saying "It's nothing we didn't already know," and at first, that
was my conclusion as well: there's no bombshells here. But upon reflection, there actually is
something that we didn't know. It answered a mystery that has perplexed me for the better
part of 3 years, albeit I don't think the author knows it themselves. The million dollar
question: how could anyone with any morality, dignity, patriotism, or merely a sense of
self-preservation work in the Trump administration? 'A Warning' is not any kind of explosive
insider expose on the workings of the current White House. It's far too vague and
generalized, avoiding specifics on nearly every topic to the point of exasperation. What this
book is, is an attempt by the author to justify their bad, and it must be said, weak choices.
It's both a sub-conscious excuse and apology for what's clear the author has still not fully
come to terms with themselves. Between the lines, you can almost see him/her trying to work
it out, never quite grasping his/her own moral weakness in enabling a man they know to be
dangerously incompetent. Everybody, anybody, who has ever worked for somebody else has faced
this dilemma at some point in their career: when the boss is bad; you either stay for
self-serving reasons (like your finances) or you make a stand before the boss damages the
whole enterprise. The author is trying to make a stand, and failing at it. The alarming
aspect in this instance, is the stakes are so much higher, the highest, in fact. This is a
book written by somebody deep in denial, attempting to work it out but not quite willing,
yet, to look themselves directly in the mirror. Chapter 7, "Apologists," is the most telling.
The author is not just explaining the motivations of his/her co-participants, but is
unwittingly addressing their self as well. Perhaps the most important question here, is WHO
does Anonymous think they are "Warning?" at this point? For the Never-Trumpers this is all
old news. For the Ever-Trumpers, they're never going to read anything unapproved by their
Dear Leader. For those on the fence (if there are any) they're comatose and aren't capable of
comprehension. This wasn't written for anybody but the author's own conscience, and even at
that, it hedges, dances around itself, and avoids mirrors.
The book tells readers what is already known and readily apparent about Donald Trump: his
lack of empathy and curiousity, his volatility and impetuousness, his vengeful nature, the
long-lasting damage he is doing to the country's institutions and norms.
The book does not delve into much, if any, new territory that has not been previously
reported. Mentions of specific administration members and their individual actions are
sparing and go little beyond general notions that many intitially thought Trump would turn
his behavior around, are continually dumbfounded by him, try behind the scenes to keep the
wheels of government on the road and fail due to his ADD, vanity, and pettiness, and that all
know they are expendible to him.
The author devotes quite a bit of time discussing historical Greek democratic philosophy
and examples to compare to the current situation. While interesting, it only serves to put
Trump's personality and failings into yet another historical context which would surprise
nobody who has paid any attention to this administration, government, politics, law, or
history.
One of the largest problems with the author's arguments and solutions is that it
ultimately lack individual courage. The author takes time to discuss the passengers aboard
Flight 93 that fought back against the hijackers on 9/11. He/she even ends the book with the
famous last words of one of the passengers who fought back: " Let's roll." While we do not
know the identity of the author, his or her actions in publishing this book are not the same.
The actions of passengers deciding to fight back against hijackers was not anonymous. They
did not fail to show their faces. They met the danger head-on and with full knowledge of the
consequences of failure. They did not try to leave it to others. The author gives the coda
that the general public needs to wake up and do something, but then does not get in the aisle
with the rest of the passengers to fight back. While the author's explanation of remaining
anonymous is logical (that the message is more important than the messenger), the author
ultimately falls prey to one of the flaws of everyone else who serves Trump: that he/she is
not willing to speak truth directly to power regardless of the horrific consequences of not
doing so. Former Senator Jeff Flake and Representative Justin Amash have made many of the
same philosophical and logical points as the author regarding Trump's damaging actions
publicly, to their own political demise. The reader cannot help but wonder if the author is
still in the administration taking daily part in the passivity of those who know better but
will not say it to Trump's face.
The book offers much in the way of problems but little in the way of solutions. The author
suggests Americans be engaged in civics and politics at local and state levels. The author
suggests that we find the political middle and return to civility. The author does not posit
how the reader should, given such a dire warning, convince the many people to change course,
who: 1) see what Trump really is and actually like it, 2) have been completely fooled about
who Trump really is but will not respond to facts, logic, and/or self-interest, and 3) hold
power to do something about Trump (i.e.: 53 Republican Senators) but remain passive due to a
variety of personal, social, political, or economic factors.
Ultimately, the book puts forth an important analysis of Trump, the sycophants that
surround him, and the damage he continues to do. But it doesn't come with the gravity of
someone who is willing to risk his/her own skin in order to try to save the country that
he/she seems to hold so dear. The message would mean more if the author was willing to risk
all like the passengers of Flight 93.
A Warning by Anonymous who claims to be a senior Trump administration official comes on
the heal of previous tell all books such as Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury and Bob Woodward's
Fear. Unfortunately, if one read those books or has paid attention to the news there is
nothing really new in A Warning, which outlines the argument against the Trump
presidency.
Anonymous' argument is that Trump is unfit for the presidency and most be voted out of
office in the next election. The author's complaints are well known. The president knows
nothing about how the government, the economy or foreign policy works which leads to endless
problems as he makes pronouncements, Tweets, or asks his staff to do things that can't be
done, and sometimes might even be illegal. He contemplated telling the National Guard that
was deployed to the border with Mexico to shoot people trying to enter illegally as a
deterrent. Trump isn't inquisitive, doesn't read, and is an avid consumer of conspiracy
theories. Trump for example is so adverse to reading and has such a short attention span that
his staff has been reduced to briefing him with just one graphic or one slide that represents
one main issue, and to repeat that point over and over in the hopes that it will sink in with
the chief executive. Many times that fails. Instead, Trump's main sources of information are
cable news and a variety of conspiracy theories he hears or makes up himself. The president's
language is divisive. Trump revels in smack talking, and one of his favorite times is to go
to rallies where he can unleash a new line against his opponents. He enjoys being a rabble
rouser and inciting his followers. The president came into office with a diverse cabinet of
generals, politicians, and businessmen, but most of them have left. Not only that, but some
of them were willing to stand up to the president and tell him things he didn't want to hear.
The author considers himself part of this group. Now Trump is surrounded by people that only
tell him what he wants to hear. All together that has led the White House into one crisis
after another. Trump Tweets he wanted out of Syria without telling any of his staff
beforehand. The White House had outlined a $2 trillion infrastructure bill with the
Democrats, but then Trump got mad watching cable TV before a planned meeting and walked away
from the deal. The author has one great characterization at an end of a chapter where he says
the government is like one of Trump's companies. It's badly managed, a sociopath is at its
head, there is infighting, lawsuits, debt, shady deals, and everything is focused upon the
owner rather than the customers.
Anonymous does make one new argument you rarely hear, and that is Trump is not a
conservative. He starts off with the fact that Trump has changed his party affiliation
several times. He also has violated many of the hall marks of conservatism such as free
trade, fiscal responsibility, and cutting the size of the federal government. Trump for
example, has created a huge budget deficit with his tax cuts while continuing to increase
public spending.
Again, the problem with the book isn't the message, it's just that his has all been said
before. I was at least expecting some interesting stories to go along with this laundry list
of faults, but was disappointed by the lack of them. In the end, if this is the first book
you're thinking of reading about Trump you will get the main arguments against his
presidency. If you've been following Trump and his faults, then there's little to see
here.
"A Warning" confirms with additional anecdotes what we already know--useful if you don't
want to go all over the web for "all the news" about the White House's inner workings and the
President's behavior. It's well-written but would have been more compelling if the op-eds,
snark and name-calling had been edited out. Clearly, not written (but possibly edited) by
someone with a journalism background. The chapter on "character" was the most valuable as it
serves as a reminder of what we are looking for in a leader of our country, or any leader, in
fact--someone with integrity, honesty, service-minded, respectful of others, clear-thinking,
etc. It's clear from what's written here that if the President is re-elected, it says more
about our nation than it does about a 73-year-old man who clearly has attention deficit
disorder, possibly a reading disability, and absolutely no experience with statecraft. (Nor
does he care. I don't know what's worse.) I'm sure this book will become a part of our
interesting historical record!
I purchased this book (against my better judgment) because I thought maybe the insights in
this book would be enlightening. But I wish I hadn't spent the money. First, most of what was
related in these pages, other than the opinion parts, were already well known through media,
especially The New York Times and The Washington Post, as well as other other media
outlets.
Second, anyone paying attention would have anticipated Trump's actions. What made me want
to vomit after finishing this book was the realization that the Republican party doesn't care
and will continue to support Trump, regardless of the evidence that he is not fit to serve
and the author despite issuing this "warning", doesn't have the guts or the patriotism to
come out of the shadows.
I also take issue with the author's portrayal of "never Trumpers" as crazed haters. That's
the farthest from the truth. Many of us recognized early on that Trump is agrifter and a liar
and an unscrupulous opportunist. We are not crazed; we are sounding the alarm! We are
sensible patriots who love our country and our Constitution, who do not want to see our
discourse redown into tribal factions and, possibly, into civil war (hopefully, if such does
occur it will be cyber rather than armed conflict).
Every single day we are asked to ignore what our eyes can clearly see and what our ears
can clearly hear and our brains can easily deduce in order to allow Trump's reality to
proceed unquestioned. He doesn't understand he is not a monarch and his children are not
heirs to the throne. The lies are non-stop and getting worse and the people surrounding him,
including the author, are doing NOTHING to reign him in.
Last, we are in the midst of an impeachment inquiry. I've read every deposition that has
been released and watched every minute of direct testimony during the hearings. It is without
contest that Trump attempted to extort and bribe Ukraine in order to have the newly
inaugurated president of Ukraine announce an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden's
involvement with Burisma. Sondland made it abundantly clear that no such actual investigation
would be necessary, just the announcement of an investigation to tarnish Joe Biden's
reputation and electoral standing. Trump's act was sleazy and wrong and illegal (check the
statute about soliciting foreign involvement in domestic elections).
I'm infuriated by the author's insinuation that we who oppose such actions by any
president are somehow deranged. The writer seems to think that impeachment and removal from
office for such dirty tricks involving a foreign government should be somehow, beyond the
pale for a civilized society. NO! Trump has obviously abused his office and put an ally in
danger by withholding funding HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO WITHHOLD, according to our
Constitution. The author seems to think we should just cover our eyes to these transgressions
and wait until the next election to vote Trump out.
What about all of the damage Trump can perpetrate on our democracy and on our foreign
policy. He has done so much damage alrready, how can we allow him another year and keep our
fingers crossed that it doesn't get worse? Also, since Trump was obviously trying to
influence our upcoming elections with his dirty dealings, how can we allow him to remain in
office knowing that he will do anything to cheat to win?
We anti-Trumpers (not never-Trumpers) are constantly accused of trying to perpetuate a
"coup" by trying to remove Trump from office via either impeachment or through the 25th. That
would only be true if Hilllary Clinton was installed in Trump's place. But If Trump leaves
office before his first term is up, Mike Pence will assume the duties of president, not HRC.
-- certainly not a "coup" to anyone who has half a brain and understands how our system
works. It would still be a Republican administration and there would still be a Republican
Senate. Certainly NOT a coup, just a Constitutional succession of the next in.line.
With regard to restoring a "climate of truth", that is impossible so long as alternative
media (including FOX) exists. We Americans used to share a truth courtesy of the likes of
Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley and others. Now, there's "left" media and a "right"
media and they both exist in their own realities. We no longer share the same reality. If we
no.longer share the same immutable facts and truths, then how can we work out our differences
and our needs so we can all come to a consensus?
This book left me feeling angry and afraid for the future of my country, especially
because people like the "anomynous" author doesn't take his citizenship and patriotism a step
forward and tell what he knows on the record.
Don't waste your money. The author is a coward and should never profit from his lack of
courage.
This is not a very good book . I say this even though I was so looking forward to it ,
even buying it in pre-publication. On the publication date, I woke up early and started to
read it, only to find it repetitious and general in nature.
Trump is described as amoral, indifferent, inattentive and impulsive – repeatedly. But
with little background. The author is afraid of being identified as such so he deletes
specific information that may later identify him. High ranking officials are identified as
"high ranking officials". Important meetings are identified as "important meetings".
I did not read the original article that led to the book but It feels like the author took
the article and padded it into a book. Disappointing: a waste of time; a waste of money.
First off, I really enjoyed the author's listing of every sleazy thing Trump has ever done
(none of which are new or even greatly detailed), followed by snarky quips about Democrats
taking power with too much zeal to investigate. That's the kind of 'logic' we are looking at
here. The argument is that there is a lawless criminal in the White House but it's better to
whine about him in print than do anything about it.
Secondly, there is no new information in this book. There is nothing here I have not heard
before. There are no damning conversations or dramatic revelations. This book packages up the
reporting of every news agency to date and just vomits it out at us. We've heard this all
before. We had the author's level of indignation three years ago. We came to these
conclusions three years ago. It is insulting that the author presents this material with a
'ta-daaa!' It's a scam.
Thirdly, Trump does what he does because weasels like the author of this 'book' let him.
No matter what justifications this guy has for himself, he is still nothing but an enabler,
and is complicit in the actions of this Administration. The author spends most of the book
whining about the things Trump has done, takes no responsibility for anything, and does a LOT
of "CYA." (cover your butt).
This is just a bad show... Republicans are afraid to ask critical question. And Democrats are
afraid even to touch the issue of their alliance with CIA, as they have way to many skeletons
buried in the closet. I would like to see Obama testifying on Trump spying he ordered Brennan to
conduct, Brennan contacts with MI6 which he authorized and on his actions in Ukraine, when he
crushed a fragile constitutional order and installed right-wing junta. Nobody wants truth.
Instead, they peddled three hyper-partisan scholars in front of the House Judiciary
Committee who had an obvious emotional investment in impeaching Trump, over claims that he
abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate credible allegations of corruption by former
Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The lone moderate was George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who told House
Democrats that by attempting such an ill-founded impeachment they are the ones abusing their
power.
... ... ...
Gaetz ends by suggesting that if "wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable
offense, I look forward to reading that Inspector General's report because maybe it's a
different president we should be impeaching.
Too bad this questioning could not go on further. She is a total A$$, to say the least.
Just an example of the elite in our "Elite" colleges. I hope the admin of Stanford is happy
with her "performance"! Good thing I wasn't smart enough to go there! Embarrassing.
"Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during
congressional impeachment hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the
Russians there and we don't have to fight them here."
Yes, you read that right. It seems in Karlan's mind, all that's stopping "the Russians" from
invading the US is the Ukrainian army, which must be kept strong to stave off the ultimate
disaster. The law professor made the baffling comment during the House Judiciary Committee
impeachment hearing on Wednesday."
The most likely outcome of a continuation of the impeachment fiasco is the reelection of
Trump
In the push for a December impeachment vote, House Democrats appear poised to make history.
It will be the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the
narrowest impeachment in history.
This is the worst sort of self-interested partisan politics and factional bureaucratic power
grab creeping into a full-blown war. Nobody represents me in this fight, and nobody is serving
the national interest. Remove them all before they blow us all up.
Those people who want Trump out of office ASAP because of the damage he is doing to the
country and the world, should understand that the rot is too entrenched and both parties want the
things Trump is doing. So changing who is at the help of the Titanic is not going to change a
damn thing.
And now about the level of corruption of US academy or professor as a gangster: Stanford law
professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during congressional impeachment
hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the Russians there and we don't have
to fight them here."
"presumed" the aid to Ukraine was conditioned on
investigations." [snip]
"Will Chamberlain, lawyer and publisher of the conservative journal Human Events, went a
step further and argued that Schiff's report actually exonerates Trump. By noting that the
president's view of Ukraine as corrupt was based on discussions with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban,
the report actually gives evidence that Trump's actions were based on policy concerns –
which would make them perfectly in line with his authority as president, Chamberlain argued on
Twitter.
Not that any of this matters for the further course of the impeachment inquiry. The
publication of Schiff's report was a mere formality, as House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry
Nadler (D-New York) had scheduled the first of his own impeachment hearings for Wednesday."
'House Democrats begin next phase of impeachment drive', By Patrick Martin, 3 December 2019 ,
wsws.org
"The Democratic Party effort to impeach President Trump for withholding military aid to
Ukraine moves into its next stage Wednesday [today], with the first formal hearing before the
House Judiciary Committee, which is expected to draw up articles of impeachment for a vote by
the full House before the end of the month.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, in a five-page letter sent Sunday to Judiciary Committee
Chair Jerrold Nadler, denounced the hearing and said Trump would not send a legal
representative or otherwise participate.
Wednesday's hearing will review the legal and constitutional requirements for impeachment,
without any testimony on the nature of the charges being brought against Trump. Late Monday,
Nadler released the names of the four witnesses. All are law school professors, including three
called by the Democrats -- Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law
School, and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law -- and one
called by the Republicans, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School.'
[snip]
If Biden was corrupt as hell, why not to coordinate with President administration and his
personal lawyer about this matter. Biden status as a Democratic contender does not absolve him
from criminal liability under Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq.
("FCPA"), was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and
entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining
business.
Contained within a 300-page report on the Democrats' impeachment investigation was a
startling admission; House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) had obtained
call records between Rep. Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani, Ukraine intermediary Lev Parnas,
and journalist John Solomon .
In response, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) said "It
raises a lot of serious questions," before demanding to know what Schiff was up to.
" I want to know all the people Adam Schiff is spying on ," Schiff told the Washington Examiner . "Are there other members of Congress that he is spying on,
and what justification does he have? He needs to be held accountable and explain what he's
doing, going after journalists, going after members of Congress, instead of doing his job."
The records showed calls between Nunes and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy
Giuliani, and calls between Nunes and Lev Parnas , a Giuliani associate now under indictment
for funneling foreign money to U.S. political candidates.
Schiff said the calls raise questions about whether Nunes was involved in what Democrats
believe was a scheme to undermine Trump's political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. -
Washington Examiner
On Tuesday, Schiff said "I find it deeply concerning at a time when the president of the
United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there
may be evidence of members of Congress complicit in that activity ."
Nunes says he doesn't recall speaking with Parnas, and that any discussions with Giuliani
would have likely revolved around the Mueller report.
"I remember talking to Rudy Giuliani, and we were actually laughing about how Mueller bombed
out," Nunes told Fox News on Tuesday. Democrats claim that the Nunes call records
reveal that he's been coordinating with the Trump administration and Giuliani to go after
former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been credibly accused of corruption in Ukraine
involving his son Hunter.
Democrats have been critical of Nunes since his tenure as the House Intelligence Committee
chairman from 2017 to 2019. During that time, Nunes made a trip to the White House to inform
Trump his transition meeting messages were intercepted by U.S. intelligence.
"I always felt that Mr. Nunes was a dividing character," Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of
New Jersey told the Washington Examiner . "We know of his meetings with the president,
which he had every right to do by the way. But in the peculiar position he was in, it was
obvious where he was getting his orders and how he proceeded. And I think he's going to get
what's coming to him."
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said "there are serious questions" about the calls between
Nunes and Giuliani and Parnas. He said Democrats "need to look at them and see what action
ought to be taken, if any."
Hoyer declined to say whether it would be in the form of a House ethics investigation or a
punitive House floor measure.
"I want to have input from other people before I opine on what we ought to be doing. I
will be doing that," he said. - Washington Examiner
The call record produced by House Democrats also reveal calls in late April between Lev
Parnas and journalist John Solomon, a previous columnist for The Hill who has broken
several bombshell stories regarding the Russia investigation and the Bidens.
"I'm interested in why he was doing this," said Scalise of Schiff. "And under what
authority."
The fraction of RussiaGate/UkraineGate that can be taken seriously is quite small. An
enormous amount of it is "it's ok when we do it"-level material. Difficult to sort without
presenting a range encompassing all factions.
It's possible I'm too jaded, but "reporters presents material derived from his political
faction" isn't all that exciting, since I don't belong to either of the factions engaged in
this battle. I remember the Lewinsky Matter, WMDs, and (see today's Links), being smeared by
Prop0rNot, and UkraineGate just a little too well.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a
potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as
accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a
master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show
appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are
still busying themselves atop the fagot pile.
While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The
Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3
months.
I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
In reading the Constitution, there's nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific
procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what
High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It
appears the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a
vote. Nancy Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party
votes.
What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the
Intelligence Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there's
no opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and
testimony.
They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also
deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the
ability of "political ads" to target audiences with unique adds. That's all coordinated
against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch
with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
The last two were prime examples. The "good immigrant" - and a woman; check a couple of
boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump's Tweets
(now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr.
Holmes. Do you think either know what's going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr.
Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit.
And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in
Kiev.
Of course those aren't the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or
those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews - in Scotland. A fine school all
middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American's. You are concerned about
due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that
happens in their neighborhood.
Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption
fighting to good use in a country they all love. I'm sure these two fine examples of white
privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place
like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no
problems at all fixing that city. It's full of honest Americans.
Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers.
See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers
the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.
Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what
is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process - almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of
personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and
intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u
unopposed - no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our
favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump.
Winning.
blue peacock, I am also puzzled by the Democrats - soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose
„face" now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why
would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very
grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not
going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that
assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is
playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not
follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi - in different context - „impeachment is
off the table".
One of the problems with show trials is that they usually backfire...
Notable quotes:
"... What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the whistle-blower law. ..."
"... Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant. ..."
"... The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job isn't it? ..."
"... turcopolier , 20 November 2019 at 09:46 PM ..."
"... I will try again. The law has nothing to do with non-intelligence matters and there were no intelligence matters in the phone call. ..."
"... The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn it asunder. ..."
"... If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires. ..."
"... Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'. ..."
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse. ..."
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for
filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint.
Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal
destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint
of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump
alone has torn it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating
complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect
luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson
is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint;
an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information
of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very
epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings.
The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or
Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that
"I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding
the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks
have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to
the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that
I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying
files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up
strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible
calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious
questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear
contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the
remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of
a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against
the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short,
and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining
the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/
.)
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced
as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original
form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the
level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance
is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See
http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to
have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with
Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions,
and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that
Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not
justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh
talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes
were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in
this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation.
(If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but
it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise
the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak
before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What
was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to
help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian
conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how
exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian
link .
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are
any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question
when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted
to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd,
2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):
Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small,
Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the
public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order
to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would
go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted
communications for covert action operatives.
His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a
false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services,
is very suspicious indeed.
Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After
all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories
on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
"... Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here . ..."
"... Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here . ..."
"... Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here . ..."
"... Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the embassy's statement here and here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning." You can read her testimony here . ..."
"... Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality. ..."
"... Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here . Kent testified he signed the letter here . ..."
"... Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here . ..."
"... Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
"... Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's service to his country. He's a hero. I also respect his decision to testify
at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.
But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate
in America, one that can't be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.
So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress,
he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
"I think all the key elements were false," Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. "Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you
referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?"
"All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false . Were there more items in there, frankly,
congressman? I don't recall. I haven't looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right."
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that
included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.
And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to
sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.
Fact 1 : Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father
Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy.
Here
is the announcement. Hunter Biden's hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production
and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister
here . Hunter Biden's firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments
here .
Fact 2 : Burisma was under investigation by
British authorities for corruption
and soon came under investigation by
Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Fact 3 : Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a
December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden's role at the company
was undercutting his father's anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Fact 4 : The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials.
I especially refer you to State official George Kent's testimony
here . He testified he viewed
Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the
vice president's office and to block a project that State's USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador
Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read
her testimony
here .
Fact 5 : The Obama White House invited Shokin's prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss
their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that
here . Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in
Ukraine and
English
. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.
Fact 6 : The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden's employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin's
office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property.
Here is the announcement of that court-approved
raid.
Fact 7 : Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read
his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court
here and his interview with
ABC News
here .
Fact 8 : Burisma's American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption
allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials'
account of that effort here
Fact 9 : Joe Biden boasted in a
2018 videotape
that he forced Ukraine's president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his
videotape here
.
Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and
ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that
claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that
here .
Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting
with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails
here .
Fact 12 : Burisma's legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that "false
information" had been spread to justify Shokin's firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives
also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian
prosecutors' summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers' invite to Washington
here .
Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion
dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations
here .
Fact 14 : In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence
of money laundering. You can read NABU's February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case
here , the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors
here and a
May 2019 interview
here
with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And
here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian
state funds.
Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee
contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the
embassy's statement
here and
here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary
Clinton winning." You can read her testimony
here .
Fact 16 : Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You
can read the email here .
Fact 17 : Ukraine's ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee
Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal
affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly's OpEd
here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats
here . And your colleagues
Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill
testifying this
week that Chaly's OpEd was "probably not the most advisable thing to do."
Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary
member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference
by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling
here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.
Fact 19 : George Soros' Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying
the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo
here .
Fact 20 : The State Department and Soros' foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about
that funding here from the Centre's own funding records and George
Kent's testimony about it here
.
Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office
demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars,
including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter
here . Kent testified he signed the
letter here .
Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I
accurately quoted him by watching the video
here .
Fact 23 : Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko's claim, calling it a "fabrication." I reported their
reaction
here .
Fact 24 : Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in
an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko's office on several
occasions not to "prosecute, investigate or harass" certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist
Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official's comments
here . In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition
here .
Fact 25 : In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter,
which you can read here
.
Fact 26 : In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to
proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016
election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account
here . You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing
the Ukrainian prosecutors' interests.
Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State
Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to
discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make
it publicly available. Your testimony did not.
If you don't have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually
accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.
"... The anonymous author of the piece revealed that "many of the senior officials in [Trump's] own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." The "adults in the room," he claimed, are leading a "two-track presidency." ..."
"... The author, "Anonymous," has been publicly identified as Guy Snodgrass, the US Navy commander who served as the communications secretary for the Department of Defense under Gen. James Mattis. Posting a report of his alleged authorship on Twitter, Snodgrass cryptically mused, "the swirl continues. ..."
"... If the allegation is true, it would have ominous implications. It would mean that the New York Times gave the military an opportunity to denounce a president as "amoral," "impetuous," "petty" and "ineffective," and to all but advocate his removal via unconstitutional means. ..."
"... We do not know whether Snodgrass is the author of A Warning , but the themes of the National Defense Strategy document are consistent with the emphasis of the book. ..."
"... A Warning makes one thing abundantly clear: the "Resistance" to Trump's policies within the state, which is the basis of the Democrats' opposition to him, centers on claims that Trump is insufficiently aggressive in defending and expanding America's imperial interests against Russia and China. ..."
"... A Warning argues that "America's dominant role on the international stage is at risk today," but Trump is "not positioning us to strengthen our empire of liberty." It continues: "Instead, he's left the empire's flank vulnerable to power-hungry competitors" with his "isolationist, what's-in-it-for-me attitude toward the world." ..."
"... Politically, the author appears to be an anti-Trump Republican. He urges his "fellow Republicans" to vote for a centrist Democrat if one is nominated--as long as the candidate is not a "socialist." ..."
"... The struggle to remove Trump and to hold him to account for his real crimes will have nothing to do with people such as "Anonymous," or the Democratic impeachment campaign that is totally aligned with his pro-war agenda. ..."
On September 5, 2018, the New York Times published an op-ed by a "senior official" in
the White House, entitled "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration."
The anonymous author of the piece revealed that "many of the senior officials in [Trump's]
own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his
worst inclinations." The "adults in the room," he claimed, are leading a "two-track
presidency."
In that op-ed, he revealed that "there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking
the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president."
In other words, members of the executive branch had discussed a coup to remove a sitting
president, which they pulled back from only because "no one wanted" a "constitutional
crisis."
One year later, the same unnamed official, whose identity is known to the Times , has
published a book elaborating on themes elucidated in the editorial. A Warning is
currently #1 on the New York Times ' nonfiction bestseller list.
The author, "Anonymous," has been publicly identified as Guy Snodgrass, the US Navy
commander who served as the communications secretary for the Department of Defense under Gen.
James Mattis. Posting a report of his alleged authorship on Twitter, Snodgrass cryptically
mused, "the swirl continues."
If the allegation is true, it would have ominous implications. It would mean that the New
York Times gave the military an opportunity to denounce a president as "amoral,"
"impetuous," "petty" and "ineffective," and to all but advocate his removal via
unconstitutional means.
Notably, Snodgrass claims to be the author of perhaps the most important military document
produced under the Trump administration, the unclassified summary of the 2018 National Defense
Strategy, which declared that "Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the
primary concern in US national security."
We do not know whether Snodgrass is the author of A Warning , but the themes of the
National Defense Strategy document are consistent with the emphasis of the book.
AWarning makes one thing abundantly clear: the "Resistance" to Trump's
policies within the state, which is the basis of the Democrats' opposition to him, centers on
claims that Trump is insufficiently aggressive in defending and expanding America's imperial
interests against Russia and China.
Cmdr. Guy M. Snodgrass is shown in this Defense
Department photograph in Japan in 2016. MATTHEW C. DUNCKER/U.S. NAVY
A Warning argues that "America's dominant role on the international stage is at risk
today," but Trump is "not positioning us to strengthen our empire of liberty." It continues:
"Instead, he's left the empire's flank vulnerable to power-hungry competitors" with his
"isolationist, what's-in-it-for-me attitude toward the world."
The allegations continue:
The president lacks a cogent agenda for dealing with these rivals because he doesn't
recognize them as long-term threats. He only sees near-term deals. "Russia is a foe in
certain respects. China is a foe economically But that doesn't mean they are bad," the
president said in one interview
What he doesn't see, especially with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, is that their
governments are programmed to oppose us
The United States is taking its eye off the ball with China, and our national response has
been ad hoc and indecisive under President Trump. We have no serious plan to safeguard our
"empire of liberty" against China's rise. There is only the ever-changing negotiating
positions of a grifter in chief, which will not be enough to win what is fast becoming the
next Cold War. President Trump is myopically focused on trade with China, which is only part
of the picture
In a July 2018 interview, the president was asked to name America's biggest global
adversary. He didn't lead the list with China, which is stealing American innovation at a
scale never before seen in history, or Russia, which is working to tear our country
apart.
And on and on.
In response to such concerns, the writer makes clear that sections of this staff were
contemplating an extra-constitutional coup to replace Trump by declaring the American president
mad and therefore "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," in the words of
the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, which outlines presidential succession in the case
of a presidential disability.
A back-of-the-envelope "whip count" was conducted of officials who were most concerned
about the deteriorating situation. Names of cabinet-level officials were placed on a mental
list. These were folks who, in the worst case scenario, would be amenable to huddling
discreetly in order to assess how bad the situation was getting I froze when I first heard
someone suggest that we might be getting into "Twenty-fifth territory."
Among the figures noted in the press as possibly amenable to such an endeavor were former
Defense Secretary Mattis, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former Chief of Staff Gen.
John Kelly and former National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster.
The writer describes what the removal of the president via the 25th Amendment would look
like:
Removal of the president by his own cabinet would be perceived as a coup. The end result
would be unrest in the United States the likes of which we haven't seen since maybe the Civil
War. Millions would not accept the outcome, perhaps including the president himself, and many
would take to the streets on both sides. Violence would be almost inevitable.
If Trump is "removed from office and he refuses to go He will not exit quietly -- or easily
It is why at many turns he suggests 'coups' are afoot and a 'civil war' is in the offing."
One does not know whether the author has really had a change of heart about overthrowing the
American government in a coup, or, if he is a military person, he fears a court martial for
treason. In any event, he concludes, "In a democracy we don't overthrow our leaders when
they're underperforming. That's for third-rate banana republics and police states."
How reassuring
After only three paragraphs weighing in on the merits of the impeachment proceeding, the
author concludes, "One option -- and one option only -- stands above the rest as the ultimate
way to hold Trump accountable" -- to unseat him in the 2020 election.
Politically, the author appears to be an anti-Trump Republican. He urges his "fellow
Republicans" to vote for a centrist Democrat if one is nominated--as long as the candidate is
not a "socialist."
Two "warnings" are to be drawn from this book:
First is the enormous crisis of democracy in the United States, which has degenerated to the
point where cabinet officials, most of whom are or were military officers, abetted by the
media, discuss a coup as a legitimate means to resolve policy differences. The president,
meanwhile, repeatedly threatens to say in office past the two-term constitutional limit, and
effectively asserts unlimited and dictatorial executive powers.
While the threat posed by Trump to democratic rights is immense, no one who opposes war and
attacks on democratic rights can have anything to do with the aims and intentions of the author
of this book. Behind his pilfered, cobbled-together quotations -- he calls Plato an American
historian -- and his ridiculous attempt at gravitas, he is a bloodthirsty advocate of
imperialist war.
The Democrats, who have upheld this man and people like him as the "adults in the room" and
the antipode to Trump, are infected with the same poison.
The struggle to remove Trump and to hold him to account for his real crimes will have
nothing to do with people such as "Anonymous," or the Democratic impeachment campaign that is
totally aligned with his pro-war agenda.
'A Warning: A manifesto of the pro-war "Resistance" in the American state ' Andre Damon,
4 December
2019 , wsws.org
On September 5, 2018 , the New York Times published an op-ed by a "senior official" in the
White House, entitled "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration."
The anonymous author of the piece revealed that "many of the senior officials in [Trump's]
own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations." The "adults in the room," he claimed, are leading a "two-track
presidency."
In that op-ed, he revealed that "there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking
the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president."
..........................................
One year later , the same unnamed official, whose identity is known to the Times, has
published a book elaborating on themes elucidated in the editorial. A Warning is
currently #1 on the New York Times ' nonfiction bestseller list.
The author, "Anonymous," has been publicly identified as Guy Snodgrass, the US Navy
commander who served as the communications secretary for the Department of Defense under Gen.
James Mattis. Posting a report of his alleged authorship on Twitter, Snodgrass cryptically
mused, "the swirl continues."
If the allegation is true, it would have ominous implications. It would mean that the New
York Times gave the military an opportunity to denounce a president as "amoral," "impetuous,"
"petty" and "ineffective," and to all but advocate his removal via unconstitutional
means.
Notably, Snodgrass claims to be the author of perhaps the most important military document
produced under the Trump administration, the unclassified summary of the 2018 National
Defense Strategy, which declared that "Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is
now the primary concern in US national security."
We do not know whether Snodgrass is the author of A Warning, but the themes of the
National Defense Strategy document are consistent with the emphasis of the book.
A Warning makes one thing abundantly clear: the "Resistance" to Trump's policies within the
state, which is the basis of the Democrats' opposition to him, centers on claims that Trump
is insufficiently aggressive in defending and expanding America's imperial interests against
Russia and China."
.......................................................
The Democrats, who have upheld this man and people like him as the "adults in the room" and
the antipode to Trump, are infected with the same poison.
The struggle to remove Trump and to hold him to account for his real crimes will have nothing
to do with people such as "Anonymous," or the Democratic impeachment campaign that is totally
aligned with his pro-war agenda."
and another 20 inches of text. you'll also remember that the NYT published a whispered rumor
last year that 'military insiders' were saying privately that DT really meant to leave NATO,
which was nonsense. that rumor led to the infamous 'defense of NATO act', which every senator
vote for, and almost all of the house (3 didn't vote, conveniently.)
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the
so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside
firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers
since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.
One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million
funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of
CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of
Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor
to the Democratic Party.
CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.
On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial
Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by
former British spy Christopher Steele.
CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri
Alperovitch.
Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward
Russia. The Council in turn is financed
by Google Inc.
In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council
funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with
Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's
role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when
Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.
Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist
George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and
the U.S. State Department.
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State
Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization
repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint
alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign
country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released
by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's
own claims, as Breitbart News
documented .
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S.
officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of
other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the
Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the
"cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The
complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden
corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials
told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on
22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met
with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three
more occasions. It does so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko
"also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former
Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called
whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of
Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced
above."
The OCCRP
report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime
and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and
business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's
presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and
the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt
outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed
publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use
connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP
and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia
collusion claims.
Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also
funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International
Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are
"disputed."
Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly
funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National
Endowment for Democracy.
CrowdStrike and DNC servers
CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of
your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."
In his extensive
report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not
"obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked
by Russia.
The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation
that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC
reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server
and shared details with the FBI.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director
James Comey
confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the
DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly
respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the
servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.
A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access
to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.
"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions
caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the
official continued.
... ... ...
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "
Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker
and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has
turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the
attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems
to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."
Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on
many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag,
Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White
House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.
CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary
problem."
CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy.
Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded
CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's
president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.
Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief
threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During
that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and
organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the
International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in
history! Nothing suspicious about that.
Alperovitch and the DNC
After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible
cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called
Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch,
Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his
"proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian
hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.
As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately
involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to
begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply
"agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND"
assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence
that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the
system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD).
It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0
had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked –
before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers
were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents
to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated
statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike
naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the
DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic
National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website
posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC
leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least,
Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military
(GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also
had done "nothing" but observe.
It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on
Donald Trump."
It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged"
attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking
for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by
the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that
"Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian
spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct
– even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .
How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's
company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the
systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag
report?
After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made
CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had
reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence
operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no
evidence to back it up.
On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a
massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found
emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race
against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three
other officials, to resign.
Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
(DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately
"believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to
confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the
DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about
Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois,
and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included
the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of
Congress.
Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect
about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered
members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that
failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.
Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S.
Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.
Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History
Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so
Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian
nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.
In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for
scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the
family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an
encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to
work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was
more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.
Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his
illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to
Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover
operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with
Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six
arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.
In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail
accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the
Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected
more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his
supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a
paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed
just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch
to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before
it confirmed the attribution.
Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had
identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and
Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is
plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even
speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no
references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.
Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission
After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to
see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America.
Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect
the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major
player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it
possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a
top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and
protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an
American with a top-secret clearance overnight.
We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically
top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on
a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the
top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one
were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in
America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.
Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system
like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system
from that point on .
Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so
that they can always have over-riding control.
Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the
Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly
any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do
American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about
Michael's codes?
Stolen Russian Codes
In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in
retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and
intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their
systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's
cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were
reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that
said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption
codes.
Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top
scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip
to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best
cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design
his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .
KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working
for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of
which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.
Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence
corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are
not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri,
which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are
responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or
arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits"
when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's
"suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the
CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.
Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who
works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and
distribution of digital certificates which are used to
verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital
certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central
repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a
cryptographic
technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure
public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures .
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key
bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user
key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is
considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market .
Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear
physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between
America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he
has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its
name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni
Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does
Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with
a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's
Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear
physics.
Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that
paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and
cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world
to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S.
military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control)
Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher
Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go
figure.
Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page
Education:
Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics
VT
IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications
including cryptographic protocols, authentication.
Principal SME (Contractor)
DISA
-Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014
– Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.
Technical Lead (Contractor)
U.S.
Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service
architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.
Comtech Mobile
Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security
practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.
BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging
platform with Single Sign On authentication.
Principal Software Research Engineer
Pathfire – 2001-2002
– Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content
distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management
solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital
Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated
programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions
for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.
Obama – No Friend of America
Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and
departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to
write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up
the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama
administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his
father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American
networks.
Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful
cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems
like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and
Dmitri Alperovitch for that.
It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a
"frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.
Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence
to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama
administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find
real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?
It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very
issues: "If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the
algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic
Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:
Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added
to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless,
here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:
Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the
DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.
Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and
currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.
According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group
RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence.
And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.
Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our
intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".
This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on
the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear
(RUH8).
In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a
hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.
As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails,
which most likely were leaked.
How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say
about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also
interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.
Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is
second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions.
level 1
Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian
intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal.
level 1
and have to cringe.
Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but
that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together
pretty commonly.
DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously
valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc.,
it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit
untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.
Interestingly, Russia was probably not
one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia
not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also,
government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do
wholesale dumps, like, ever.
That's
what the DNC is lying about.
Not that hacks
happened
(they undoubtedly did), but about
who
did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered
(they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).
The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing
the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools
Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth,
like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The
spoofed evidence is just mud.
An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got
hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups
did
hack the
DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?
And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with
the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who
supposedly harmed them.
level 2
What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from
pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking.
level 1
DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the
server.
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about
from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done
with all this Russia shit.
level 2
Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this
has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for
the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed.
Continue this thread
level 1
George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing
relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing
Information War material as evidence for MH17:
Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital
Forensics Lab
Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich Fancy Bear is
Ukrainian Intelligence
How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently
fraudulent data
Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper's January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy
Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can't make this shit up.]
Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as
foreign spies.*
level 1
Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said
with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence
agency GRU . CrowdStrike
founder,
Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist
George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers.
The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years
ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until
October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT,
the BBC , and Press-TV. His
articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews,
the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been
cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson,
SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Fancy Bear is Ukrainian IntelligenceShaltai Boltai
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job.
According to Politico ,
"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing
ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely
presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev
and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private
intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well."
[1]
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine
Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea
Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena
Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian
government's intelligence and propaganda arms.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels
officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American
colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against
Ukraine's criminal activities.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated
by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for
making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based
on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution.
The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to
the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and
of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for
Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information
Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they
were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know
their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work
directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta
went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .
The
First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin
sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010,
Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't
we?
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking
at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and
Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for
the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime.
It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured
servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid
Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using
Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed
herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to
do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate
passwords.
Dobrovolska
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2][3] Alexandra Chalupa was
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington
to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US
secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over
sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy
in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time
she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y.
Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]
According to CNN ,
[5] DNC sources said Chalupa
told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information
against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect
Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers.
[6] She took the Rada
[parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information
Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the
Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the
infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top
Secret Passwords From Team Clinton
One very successful method of hacking is called
social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and
physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This
includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in
passwords.
The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research.
On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the
Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State
personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the
hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called
X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.
Alleged DNC
hack
There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB
stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It
is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department
servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian
Intelligence Operators.
If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw
foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential
election . The leaker may
have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might
have.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear
George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell
Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing
the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing
substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security
firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on
par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is"
statement showing this.
The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of
specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors
that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an
out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the
Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when
it is their business to know?
The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking
America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of
Russian involvement?
information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or
unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be
free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's
that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with
McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John
McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that
Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's
emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like
the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is
probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have
specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes
beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike
insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired
by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian
intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI
official who consults for NBC News.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian
intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers
call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other,
known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called
the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to
be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post
adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in
the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to
WikiLeaks."
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine
would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this
wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary
Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in
Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing
intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If
it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be
investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side
isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia
influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose
conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a
hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason
are exposed.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After
Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a
meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns
within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the
Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal
probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her
to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her
sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news.
The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by
Russian actors based on the work done byAlexandra Chalupa? That is the
conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the
Russian government connection.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he
should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a
presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has
vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of
his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the
measures taken were directly because of his work.
Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian
propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When
it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to
influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard
to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other
statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in
Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is
OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed
in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these
people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating
both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed.[8] There is no
getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an
authoritarian
fascism .
Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms.
Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko
and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the
Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi,
Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan
and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the
Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed
evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the
"heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas
is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached
to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa
described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young
activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say
is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after
Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy
Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He
became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni
Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet
Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found
out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense
of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen
either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to
reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an
appointment with Yurash.
Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with
Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice
is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the
Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than
twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council,
where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront
of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and
especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central
and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia.
Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite
conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground
and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or
Homeland Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that
could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked
heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it
opens up criminal conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants
a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic
Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of
his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri
Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a
crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence
groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and
Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the
CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and
its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is
also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely
resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon
Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service
Crowdstrike offers?
In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA.
[11] They consider the
CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance
is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity,
Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the
Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker
network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of
Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his
"Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the
past.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA
Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the
Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single
tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information
Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and
Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or
shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be
shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it
to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through
the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded
and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and
with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article,
one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor
members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor
admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's
understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very
powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of
the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp
movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it
out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored,
Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack
they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are
also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting
a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt
Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by
Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought
the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of
the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate
the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any
other way," he told me. "I have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism
is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering
a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't
serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to
Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for
conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these
hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in
international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment
of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of
rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike
According to Obama the
hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop
until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into
November.
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying
to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election --
contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned
Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and
still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill
Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off
the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does
not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking
ridiculous and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have
taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever
did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating.
That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law
enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in
federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the
spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the
CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to
Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate
to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was
sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door
for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named
Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking
scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry
platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
On Sunday, Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, was on "Meet the Press"
spreading this disinformation . "I think both Russia and Ukraine interfered," he said.
Russia may have been more aggressive and sophisticated, he allowed, but "that does not exclude
the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton."
... ... ...
Mr. Kennedy went even further a week earlier, when he suggested on "Fox News Sunday" that,
in fact, Ukraine had hacked the Democratic computer server, obtaining emails that embarrassed
Hillary Clinton's campaign. "I don't know, nor do you, nor do any of us," he
told the host, Chris Wallace. (The next day he
told CNN's Chris Cuomo: "I was wrong. It was Russia who tried to hack the computer. I've
seen no indication that Ukraine tried to do it." It is unclear what changed his mind.
Again.)
... ... ...
The day after Dr. Hill's testimony, Mr. Trump
regaled "Fox & Friends" with wild assertions that the F.B.I. never properly examined
the hacked server because it had been handed over to a shadowy Ukrainian company called
CrowdStrike.
More broadly, the dueling Ukraine narratives are fomenting division and confusion among the
American public, an enduring goal of Mr. Putin's.
The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch
the impeachment inquiry, they're quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote.
And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including
serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will
either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can't
see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party
can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry.
This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would
love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and
electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain't happening in my life time as
most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
The law doesn't matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More's famous formulation
of the law in "A Man for All Seasons". The laws of England or any other law are of no
protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that
is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action
regardless of what is written.
Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More
reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population
that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all--in that society you
empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or
bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe
the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and
growing bolder.
Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill of beans in The
Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of
BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into
the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
Members of the "in crowd" can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them
ever faces consequences it's because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to
the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more
ambitious usurper.
The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from
the deep state went to Clinton, trump's election created and existential crisis.
Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state - look at his major2016
campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only
response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state
inflicted chaos.
Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax
dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state
doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm
troopers.
You don't get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the
whistleblower's complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment
arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.
I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the
whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it
does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
viz.
"ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure"
In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for
those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be
independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better
that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.
On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC's authority to change the
scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower
legislation / directives?
You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the
whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version
allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else
(hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe
that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said
"I'm a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information" to a DNI employee,
that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me,
that's wrong.
Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the
authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence.
While I agree that Trump's phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent
matter that can be reported to Congress, what's worse is that because the President's
activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the
authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no
authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed
the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only
problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no
authority under this law to investigate the President's activities under this statute. The
complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.
Never forget this particular "whistleblower" statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly
allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the
penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get 'em FBI.
Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse
to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never
was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing
false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only
if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony)
to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn
it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints
about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the
airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
O/T but there doesn't seem any other live thread where it can be put.
Israel is heading for a third election and is becoming politically more and more
incoherent.
Avigdor Liberman, leader of Israael's far right secular party Yisrael Beytenu has failed
in his attempts to form a government of national unity and is now denouncing the ultra
orthodox parties as "anti-semitic!"
Netanyahu continues to wobble over the void of jail.
Gantz's Blue and White party has, like Netanyahu and Liberman, failed in attempts to lead
a government of national unity.
I know there continues to be fighting in NE Syria and Yemen, and air attacks on Damascus,
riots in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, but I suspect that a lot of M.E. leaders are using this
relative calm - due to the eclipse of Bibi - to do some serious talking.
Neo-conservatives in the US continue with his policies even if he is there no longer.
It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time
to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an
excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous
response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment,
perhaps a stay at Epstein's prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable
Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here,
will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies
enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic
example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop
the fagot pile.
While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The
Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3
months.
I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
In reading the Constitution, there's nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific
procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what
High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It appears
the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a vote. Nancy
Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party votes.
What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the Intelligence
Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there's no
opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and testimony.
They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also
deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the
ability of "political ads" to target audiences with unique adds. That's all coordinated
against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch
with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
The last two were prime examples. The "good immigrant" - and a woman; check a couple of
boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump's Tweets
(now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr.
Holmes. Do you think either know what's going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr.
Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit.
And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in
Kiev.
Of course those aren't the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or
those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews - in Scotland. A fine school all
middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American's. You are concerned about
due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that
happens in their neighborhood.
Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption
fighting to good use in a country they all love. I'm sure these two fine examples of white
privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place
like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no
problems at all fixing that city. It's full of honest Americans.
Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers.
See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers
the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.
Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what
is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process - almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of
personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and
intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u
unopposed - no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our
favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump.
Winning.
blue peacock,
I am also puzzled by the Democrats - soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose
„face" now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why
would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very
grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not
going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that
assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is
playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not
follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi - in different context - „impeachment is
off the table".
"... Billionaire investor/activist George Soros has a giant footprint in Ukraine. Similar to his operations in dozens of other nations, he has, over the past couple of decades, poured tens of millions of dollars into Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ostensibly to assist them in transforming their country into a more "open" and "democratic" society. ..."
Billionaire
investor/activist George Soros has a giant footprint in Ukraine. Similar to his operations in
dozens of other nations, he has, over the past couple of decades, poured tens of millions of
dollars into Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ostensibly to assist them in
transforming their country into a more "open" and "democratic" society.
Many of the participants in Kiev's "EuroMaidan" demonstrations were members of Soros-funded
NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by
Soros' International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and
foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given "more than any
other donor organization" to "democratic transformation" of Ukraine.
The International Renaissance Foundation's Annual Report for 2012, the latest available,
states that, "IRF provided UAH 63 million in funding to civil society organizations -- more
than any other donor organization working in this field in Ukraine." The "UAH" reference used
above refers to the Ukraine Hryvnia, Ukraine's currency, which is worth about 0.11 $US, or 11
cents in U.S. currency. That translates into roughly $6.7 million that IRF provided to
Ukrainian groups in 2012; not a huge sum, by comparison to many other political and social
campaigns, but more than merely "significant." In the cash-starved Ukraine, Soros's dollars go
a long way toward seducing and co-opting all legitimate political opposition into the
Soros-approved "progressive" camp.
Over the period from 1990 to 2010 the International Renaissance Foundation provided more
than $100 million in support to numerous Ukrainian non-government organizations (NGOs),
community groups, academic and cultural institutions, publishing houses, etc.
The IRF website and annual reports make clear that the Soros funds are targeted at promoting
Ukrainian "partnership" with, and "integration" into, the EU. Soros has provided many millions
more through his other "philanthropic" spigots. However, Soros' influence in Ukraine extends
far beyond the traceable funding he provides to activist Ukrainian NGOs, academics and think
tanks. Equally, if not more, important is the influence he exerts on global opinion through his
massive propaganda network (including Project Syndicate and other Soros megaphones) and his
direct personal contacts with presidents, prime ministers, parliamentarians, central bankers,
media executives, and Wall Street titans.
In a February 26 column he penned for Project Syndicate that was carried by hundreds of
newspapers and websites, Soros argued that the EU and the IMF must initiate a new Marshall Plan
for Ukraine, meaning, of course, transfers of money from EU and U.S. taxpayers to the
politicians, organizations, and institutions approved by the globalist/socialist/corporatist
operatives running the EU and IMF. Perhaps the key point in Soros' essay, entitled, "Sustaining
Ukraine's Breakthrough," is this: "Ukraine will need outside assistance that only the EU can
provide: management expertise."
George Soros is all about management by "experts," i.e., central planning, the hallmark of
every socialist, fascist, or communist regime. In fact, he is one of the planet's premier
advocates of global central planning and control. Hence, he is a longtime fervent supporter of
the United Nations, the IMF/World Bank, the WTO, global population control through the WHO and
UNFPA, and virtually every other internationalist endeavor to subvert national sovereignty and
advance the building of an omnipotent world government.
His fetish with internationalism includes, especially, further enlarging and empowering the
EU, which has been the prime subject of concern in books and essays by Soros, as well as many
of his speeches and media interviews. Soros is a full-blown proponent of total political and
economic "integration" of the EU, meaning a complete annihilation of any residual independence
of the EU member states and the transfer of all substantive legislative, executive, and
judicial powers to EU politicians and administrators in Brussels.
Over the past several years Soros has been particularly emphatic in pushing for a central EU
Treasury, or European Fiscal Authority (EFA), which he
says is "the missing ingredient that is needed to make the euro a full-fledged currency
with a genuine lender of last resort." The European Central Bank (ECB), says Soros, has
insufficient powers to do what is needed, even though he admits it has illegally usurped powers
-- which he applauds.
When European Central Bank President Mario Draghi (a former Goldman Sachs vice chairman and
managing director) announced on August 1, 2012 that the ECB would "do whatever it takes to
preserve the euro as a stable currency," German Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann objected,
pointing out that the ECB's powers are limited by statute. Nevertheless, Draghi forged ahead,
promising that the ECB would make unlimited purchases of government bonds of indebted EU
members -- provided they put their countries under the control of executors from "the Troika"
-- the EU Commission, ECB and IMF. This is the same Troika that devastated the citizens of
Cyprus last year,
raiding their bank accounts to pay off the bonds that socialist politicians and Goldman
Sachs had saddled them with. But Soros, whose many "human rights" fronts extol the "rule of
law," "accountability," and "transparency," says that the lawless and unaccountable Troika does
not have enough power! It must be complemented by an EFA, says he, which should exercise power
over all fiscal matters.
The IMF's Managing Director Christine Lagarde and EU Commission President José Manuel
Barroso (a "former" Maoist Communist) have already lined up a multi-billion package for
Ukraine. However, many Ukrainians, all across the political spectrum, are leery of coming under
the Troika's control, and rightfully so. They do not want to trade the corruption and
oppression of Yanukovych's pro-Kremlin regime for another dictated by the EU and IMF. As we
pointed out recently , even the poll commissioned by the U.S. State Department found that
only 37 percent of Ukrainians favored joining the EU.
Economist Michael Roberts describes himself on his blogsite as "a Marxist economist."
Nevertheless, Roberts is on the mark in his February 27 column in stating: "The people of
Ukraine are left with Hobson's choice: either go with KGB-led crony capitalism from Russia or
go with equally corrupt pro-European 'democrats'." He is also correct in asserting that
Ukraine's foreign debt will soon double, if it takes IMF loans, and that the Ukrainian people
will burdened with crushing debt for a generation. He writes:
Ukraine could still stage a financial meltdown and a banking collapse. More likely, the new
government will be helped over the next few months with bridging loans until the IMF deal is
struck. Then the hardship for the people will really begin in earnest. Ukraine's foreign debt
is about to double as it takes on new debt from the IMF and the cost of existing dollar and
euro debt jumps as the hyrvnia is devalued. This burden will be on shoulders of Ukrainians for
a generation.
Only it could double several times over, and it could burden Ukrainians for much longer than
a generation; it could fasten them with debt bondage in perpetuity . Bosnian writer
Andrej Nikolaidis warns Ukrainians that massive debt and grinding poverty under Troika-managed
regime are to be expected. "It hardly comes as a surprise to us in former Yugoslavia,"
writes
Nikolaidis. "At the beginning of its dissolution, the Yugoslav foreign debt was
£9.5bn; today, after all the 'help' we got from the troika, it's more than £107bn."
He continues:
Bosnia today is a poor and divided country, even more so than it was back in 1992. Former
soldiers, hungry and sick, are gathering and protesting. "While we were bleeding, they were
stealing," says one Some Bosnians saw their future under the Bosnian and EU flag, others under
the Croatian and EU flag, and others still under the flag of The Great Serbia. Lots of flags,
but only one poverty for all.
But why must Ukraine formally join either the EU or the Kremlin-sponsored Customs Union? Are
those the only options? Is it not possible for Ukraine to adopt a neutral position of
independence and peaceful trade with both sides? Would not such a position be best for all
concerned? From the available polling, it seems that may be the view of a plurality, if not a
majority, of Ukrainians.
Ukraine's huge network of natural gas pipelines not only supplies much-needed
Russian-produced gas to EU countries, but also is the source of vital revenues to Russia from
that energy delivery system. The peoples of Russia, Ukraine, and the EU benefit from a stable,
peaceful, neutral Ukraine; forcing Ukrainians into choosing one or the other camp benefits no
one -- except the power-mad rulers of Russia and the EU, and their globalist confreres.
Why then, should Americans take direction from George Soros, Barack Obama, John Kerry,
Hillary Clinton, the New York Times , Washington Pos t, CNN, John McCain and
other internationalist voices who insist it is Ukraine that must "choose" but the only choice
considered acceptable and legitimate to the globalist choir is for Ukraine to join the EU?
Soros and his huge stable of "public intellectuals" at Project Syndicate have been flooding the
global media with propaganda to that purpose. As we've reported previously, Project Syndicate
is a project of George Soros' Open Society Foundation that has sprouted into a network of
nearly 500 newspapers in more than 150 countries with worldwide circulation of over 70 million
copies. According to the syndicate's web site, it is the largest syndication of independent
commentators in the world.
However, his great wealth, foundations, media presence, and network of activist NGOs
notwithstanding, George Soros' power and influence -- in Ukraine and elsewhere -- stem not so
much from these oft-cited trappings of power, but from the fact that he is a player, an
Insider, in the top rank of globalists who are pushing and shoving "global governance" upon the
entire planet. This was formally recognized in November 2010 when Soros received the
"Globalist of the Year Award" from the Canadian International Council (CIC).
Soros' real heft derives from the fact that he is a member of the globalist power elite.
First and foremost, he is a member of (and leader in and major financial supporter of) the
Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) , the premier globalist brain trust that has become the de facto
governing force within the executive branch of the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve
System, as well as Democrat and Republican parties, for most of the past century. His Soros
Fund Management is a President's Circle Corporate Member of the CFR and Soros himself served as
a director of the CFR for a decade (1995-2004). In addition, he has been a key participant in
many CFR events, including serving as presider at the CFR's 2000 conference, "Latin America:
Sustaining Economic & Political Reform," a major sendoff promoting the Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA).
Further, he has been an activist participant with, and sometime funder of, important
globalist organizations such as the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, the World Policy Conference, the World Economic Forum, the International
Crisis Group, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Bilderberg Group, the U.S. State Department,
the Gorbachev Foundation, the United Nations, and The Good
Club (an exclusive billionaire club -- whose members include Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,
David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg, and Oprah Winfrey -- with the singular
purpose of pushing global population control). Per the UN, Soros has served on a number of
boards and advisory groups promoting a global "Tobin Tax" on financial transactions, global
controls on CO 2 to stop "Climate Change," dramatically expanding the powers and
funding of the International Monetary Fund, and massive global wealth redistribution through
the UN's Millennium Development Goals.
Many of Soros' critics on both the Left and the Right ignore these facts and treat Soros as
if he is a singular earthshaking force all on his own. Focusing solely on his grant
distributions, political donations, NGO networks, etc., they greatly exaggerate his importance,
which can act as a diversion to distract liberty-minded advocates from focusing on the bigger
picture. Taken in isolation, without his tie-ins to the CFR-globalist network of power, Soros'
global impact would be, not insignificant, but marginal. It is precisely because he is one of
many super-wealthy globalists (albeit, he is far more visible and vocal than most) acting in
concert that his impact is so remarkable.
Especially noteworthy in relation to Ukraine is his key involvement in the
American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee (AUAC). The Ukrainian Weekly of December 10, 1995,
reported :
The American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee met in New York on November 17-18 [1995] and
reiterated its strong conviction that a resilient Ukraine is in the interest of European
stability and thus also American security.
Among other things, the AUAC called upon the U.S. Congress, USAID, the IMF, the World Bank,
and the EU to shower the Ukrainian government (then run by "former" Communist Leonid Kuchma).
It also encouraged the Ukrainian government to hasten "privatization" by selling "blocks of
equity to private investors."
Kuchma followed their advice and, as in the former Soviet Union,
his false "privatization" scheme transferred enormous state assets into the hands of select
Communist Party members, creating instant billionaire oligarchs, who have dominated Ukraine
ever since. Sitting on the UAUC with Soros were one-world CFR heavyweights Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Henry Kissinger, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Burt. The same one-worlders are pushing the same
agenda today, two decades later.
Oligarchs R Us
One of the billionaire oligarchs who benefitted from the Ukraine's crony privatization
program is Victor Pinchuk, with whom Soros has been very active. Soros's foundations and The
Victor Pinchuk Foundation collaborate on funding many NGOs and projects, in Ukraine and
elsewhere. And Soros is a participant in Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy (YES) conferences,
annual extravaganzas held in the Crimea at Livadia Palace, a summer retreat of Russian czars on
the Black Sea. The YES confabs feature current and former presidents, prime ministers,
potentates, financiers, corporate execs and celebrities.
Besides Soros, U.S. participants have included Bill Clinton, William Daley (Obama's White
House chief of staff), Robert Zoellick (Bush's trade representative, then president of the
World Bank), Newt Gingrich, and Condoleezza Rice, to name a few -- Democrats and Republicans,
CFR globalists all.
Pinchuk, a pal and funder of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, not only has generously
supported Bill's Clinton Global Initiative, but also has poured more than $13 million into the
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Another close tie is Douglas E. Schoen (CFR), a
longtime Clinton operative and political consultant, whom, according to the New York
Times , Mr. Pinchuk hired as an adviser in 2000 -- and to whom the oligarch has been paying
a tidy retainer of $40,000 per month ever since.
One of the important ventures that Soros and Pinchuk are financing is the Ukrainian Crisis
Media Center (CMC), a collaboration of Ukrainian public relations corporations and journalists
that is headquartered in Kiev's Hotel Ukraine. Ostensibly, it was created to counter the
propaganda onslaught of Putin's Russian media cartel. Much of the "independent news" we receive
from Ukraine is produced by the CMC and stamped with the Pinchuk/Soros-approved brand of
propaganda. That includes cheering on or papering over the fact that the "new" government in
Kiev is simply the latest rotation of musical chairs, and it has ended with Pinchuk's fellow
oligarchs (virtually all of which are "former" communists) and their parliamentary blocs and
political parties occupying the most important chairs (as we
reported here ).
Pinchuk is a member of the Board of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and
sits on the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution, both of which Soros
has long been associated with. Another very important Soros-Pinchuk tie is their mutual
connection to the famous (or infamous, as you prefer) Rothschild banking dynasty.
In 2011, George C. Karlweis, adviser to Baron Edmond de Rothschild and his Banque Privee,
revealed that it was Rothschild who provided Soros with the startup money -- and,
undoubtedly much (illegal) insider trading intelligence -- for Soros' fabulously successful
Quantum Fund.
The full extent of Pinchuk's connections to the Rothschild's global private empire would
require a similar revelation from an insider. That could be Jean-Pierre Saltiel, who sits on
the board of Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy, as well as the oligarch's global steel and
metallurgy conglomerate, Interpipe, Inc. He is also a longtime adviser to the Rothschilds and
the past president of Rothschild Conseil International, one of the fabled family's major bank
holding companies. Interestingly (but not so surprising), Rothschild agent Saltiel also sits on
the board of PIK Group, Russia's largest residential real estate developer, founded by Russian
oligarchs Yuri Zhukov and Kirill Pisarev (and still run by Pisarev).
Like Soros and the Rothschilds, Ukrainian oligarch Pinchuk works with and partners with a
number of Russian oligarchs. And his YES summits regularly feature Putin-allied Russian
oligarchs, as well as Putin-appointed Russian politicians and apparatchiks. Alfa Bank, Russia's
largest private bank, for example, is a YES sponsor. And Alfa Bank chairman, Mikhail Fridman, a
Putin ally and one of Russia's richest billionaires, sits on the CFR's International Advisory
Board and provided the funds to create the CFR's "Russia and Russian-American Relations
Lecture" program.
Similarly, Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch, a former
Putin-Yanukovych supporter and ally, is now a member of the new government. He is also, along
with Fridman and Soros, a YES sponsor and a business partner with Russian, EU and U.S.
Insiders. What these and dozens of other similar examples indicate is that there is much more
to all of the Sturm und Drang over the Ukraine-Russia-EU "crisis" than meets the
eye.
Soros gave a strong clue as to what the scripted outcome of the scenario would likely be.
His solution would see Russia as a "partner," and Angela Merkel (the "former" Communist from
East Germany who now runs the unified Germany) would be the broker.
"Germany should take the lead," Soros said, in his February 26 Project Syndicate column
cited above. "Chancellor Angela Merkel must reach out to President Vladimir Putin to ensure
that Russia is a partner, not an opponent, in the Ukrainian renaissance."
Instructions on the WB info says your disclosure must involve Classified Information, but not
about differences of opinions, and "please identify the agency wrongdoing".
Then you are faced with who-knows lawyer warnings by numbers/letters like "Section 2302
(a)(2)(A) of Title 5" and "threat prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B)" .
But here's their HotLine number in case you want to Ask Them any Questions:
ICIG Hotline 855-731-3260 (Intelligence Community Inspector General)
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
Folks, this "Ukraine Whistleblower" event was a
pre-planned event. As we begin to understand the general outline of how the Schiff Dossier was
assembled, we are now starting to get into the specifics. First discovered by researcher Stephen
McIntyr e, there is now evidence surfacing showing the ICIG recently created an entirely
new 'whistleblower complaint form' that specifically allowed for the filing of complaints "
heard from others ".
... ... ...
The timing here is far too coincidental. This was a set-up .
Sean Davis from the Federalist
is also hot on the trail.
Sean Davis – Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly
eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged
wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the
August submission of a
whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no
longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to
Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are
reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand
knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have
zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from
others."
The internal properties of the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form , which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24,
2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released
to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed. (
read more )
President Trump announced Joseph Macguire as the Acting ODNI on August 8th, 2019 . (
link ) The CIA operative "whistle-blower" letter to Adam Schiff and Richard Burr was on
August 12th ( link
). Immediately following this letter, the ICIG rules and requirements for "whistle-blowers" was
modified, allowing hearsay complaints. On August 28th Adam Schiff begins tweeting about the
construct of the complaint.
As Stephen McIntyre notes : "it
appears almost certain that, subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced
a brand new Urgent Disclosure Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report
allegations with no personal knowledge."
The CIA whistleblower complaint is likely the VERY FIRST complaint allowed using the new
IGIC protocol and standard. Taken in combination with the timeline of the August 12th
notification letter to Schiff and Burr and the Schiff tweet of August 28th, there's little room
for doubt this Ukraine whistleblower impeachment effort was pre-planned.
Additionally, this coordinated effort ties back-in Intelligence Community Inspector General,
Michael K Atkinson .
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the
DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson . ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ' whistle-blower '
complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was " blowing-the-whistle " based on
second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie '
hearsay '.
Michael K Atkinson
was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National
Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior
legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016
when the stop Trump operation was underway.
... ... ...
Within a heavy
propaganda report from the New York Times there are also details about the Intelligence
Community Inspector General that show the tell-tale fingerprints of the ICIG supportive intent
(emphasis mine):
[ ] Mr. Atkinson, a Trump appointee, nevertheless concluded that the allegations appeared
to be credible and identified two layers of concern.
The first involved a possible violation of criminal law. Mr. Trump's comments to Mr.
Zelensky " could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the
campaign-finance laws, " Mr. Atkinson wrote , according to the Justice Department memo. (
read
more )
Does the " foreign campaign contribution " angle sound familiar? It should, because
that argument was used in the narrative around the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian
Lobbyist Natalia Veselnitskaya. More specifically, just like FARA violations the overused
"campaign contribution" narrative belongs to a specific network of characters, Lawfare.
The "Schiff Dossier", aka "whistle-blower" complaint was a constructed effort of allied
members within congress and the intelligence apparatus to renew the impeachment effort. The
intelligence team, including the ICIG, changed the whistleblower form to allow the CIA to
insert the Schiff Dossier, written by Lawfare.
And the irony is the jstreet/lawfare group along with congress are taking two weeks off for
Rosh Hashanah/Yom Kippur, day of repentance and day of atonement. What do you wanna make a
bet they're not atoning or repenting of their evil hearts.
The Bongino video (1076 IIRC) did a nice job of showing that Shiff had it before it was
formally filed Schiff references things in the complaint in a tweet prior to the complaint
being filed
"
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss more news
breaking in the Ukrainegate hoax, where "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella appears to have been
acting on behalf of former CIA director John Brennan as a essentially a spy within the Trump
White House.
In April of 2019, Dan Bongino's had figured out that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and
his lover Lisa Page, were messaging one another about developing sources to spy within the
White House talking about sending a "CI" guy, and worried about outing "Charlie."
Bongino believes that Strzok and Page were referencing Ciaramella as being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy. Bongino notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he
included a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced char -a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
October 4, 2019 by sundance The inspector
general for the Intelligence Community is Michael Atkinson . He is very sketchy. Atkinson was
previously legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD during the 'stop-Trump' tenure of John Carlin and Mary
McCord. As a result, Atkinson was a participant in the weaponizing of the DOJ-NSD via FISA
abuse, along with NSA database exploitation and tenuous FARA legal theories used to target
political opposition.
In short, Atkinson seems dirty. At the very least he hangs around dirty characters.
Today, according to Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge , ICIG
Michael Atkinson testified the anti-Trump CIA ' whistle-blower' , likely to be Michael
Barry, did not inform Atkinson that Barry and his legal team already contacted staff working
for HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff when he submitted his complaint. More sketchy .
After he took the complaint, ICIG Michael Atkinson then changed the rules for the ICIG
office allowing a second-hand hearsay complaint to be processed. Again, sketchy .
According to New York Times reporting
earlier this week, the 'whistle-blower' (likely CIA operative Michael Barry) first tried to
push the hearsay claims to CIA management through a colleague. Fearing CIA management would not
take the gossip seriously "the officer then approached a democrat House Intelligence Committee
aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump." Chairman Schiff never told anyone.
Buckets of sketchy .
Mr. Sketchy –
ICIG Michael Atkinson
What is occurring is becoming clear
After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the House "impeachment" strategy, House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler
hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff.
Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (
link ), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal
defense attorney Barry Berke (
link ), all are within the Lawfare network. [You probably saw Berke questioning former
Trump campaign chairman Corey Lewandowski.]
It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the 'whistle-blower' complaint aka
a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative
Michael Barry to file as a formal IC complaint. This process is almost identical to the
Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the
2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.
This series of events is exactly what former CIA Analyst Fred Fleiz said last week . Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the
whistleblower process. Fleitz said last week the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by
political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing
it.
Additionally, prior to the "whistleblower complaint" the Intelligence Community Inspector
General did not accept whistle-blower claims without first hand knowledge. However, the ICIG
revised the protocol to allow this specific complaint to be registered by the CIA
whistle-blower .
Now it surfaces that the ICIG Michael Atkinson didn't even review the Trump-Zelenskyy phone
call transcript before forwarding the complaint to congress [
SEE HERE ]
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson . ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ' whistle-blower '
complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was " blowing-the-whistle " based on second
hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie ' hearsay
'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the
DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
Michael K Atkinson
was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National
Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior
legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016
when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court
( Judge Rosemary Collyer )
about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA
application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political
surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD
FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the
process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate
with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!
The report comes one day after Republicans on the House Intel committee released their own "
prebuttal " claiming Trump committed "no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of
power. The Democrats' report will be combined with the 'prebuttal' and sent to the House
Judiciary Committee, which will draft articles of impeachment following their own inquiry.
They claim there is "nothing inherently wrong" with the Trump administration's actions
toward Ukraine and justify each of them in detail, including Rudy Giuliani's direct
involvement in U.S. diplomacy.
They say any references to a quid pro quo are conjecture and hearsay -- including EU
Ambassador and Trump donor Gordon Sondland's testimony.
They question the origins of the impeachment inquiry and Democrats' motives, and they
allege that Democrats have wanted to undo the 2016 election since Trump won.
They mock Democrats for calling the impeachment inquiry a serious process, and they
characterize the speedy nature of the inquiry as proof that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is
motivated by politics rather than substance.
They use Trump's well-known skepticism about U.S. spending on foreign aid as
justification for his hesitation to give money to Ukraine.
They say there was "nothing wrong" with asking questions about Hunter Biden's role on the
board of Burisma, a Ukrainian company, or renewing unfounded allegations about who interfered
in the 2016 elections.
Neoliberal Soros is an enemy of the western civilization... He is yet another "great vampire
squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything
that smells like money." His tentacles spread to Ukraine and his money and NGO was instrumental
in EuroMaydan coup d'état. Of course, the USA agencies such as the State Delatment and CIA
played the primary role, but Soros role also should not be underestimated.
"First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you
during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in
eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?"
Zakaria
asked Soros .
"Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the
foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now," Soros
responded.
It is well-known, although forbidden for the establishment media to mention, that Soros
worked closely with USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (now doing work formerly
assigned to the CIA), the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute
for International Affairs, the Freedom House, and the Albert Einstein Institute to initiate a
series of color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia following the engineered
collapse of the Soviet Union.
"Many of the participants in Kiev's 'EuroMaidan' demonstrations were members of Soros-funded
NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by
Soros' International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and
foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given 'more than any
other donor organization' to 'democratic transformation' of Ukraine," writes
William F. Jasper .
This transformation led to fascist ultra-nationalists controlling Ukraine's security
services. In April it was announced Andriy
Parubiy and other coup leaders were working with the FBI and CIA to defeat and murder
separatists opposed to the junta government installed by Victoria Nuland and the State
Department. Parubiy is the founder of a national socialist party in Ukraine and currently the
boss of the country's National Security and Defense Council.
Now that the billionaire "chocolate king" Petro Poroshenko is president of Ukraine, the
effort to wipe out all opposition in eastern Ukraine will pick up steam. Poroshenko is a near
perfect choice for the globalists and EU apparatchiks. He sat on the Council of the National
Bank of Ukraine and collaborated with the IMF, Wall Street and the European Commission.
Poroshenko and the February coup leaders are now
killing civilians in Donetsk as the effort continues to dislodge and eradicate "pro-Russian
militants" and "terrorists," i.e., armed resistance fighters going up against Right Sector
enforcers possibly accompanied by American mercenaries with the help of the CIA. Civilians are
also victims in "rebel"-held Slovyansk and neighboring Kramatorsk as retaliation against
resistance to the junta in Kyiv intensifies.
The military response with its overly fascist character, including the
terrorist torching of a trade union building in Odessa by "pro-regime rioters" (i.e., Right
Sector paramilitaries), can be directly attributed to the activism of George Soros and the
hands-on approach of the U.S. State Department, various NGOs (which are, in fact, government
and Wall Street fronts), and USAID, NED, and the malattributed "Freedom House," etc.
Following the murder and expulsion of those opposed to the IMF lording over the government
and the people of Ukraine, Russia can expect further provocation, especially now that it has
stepped away from supporting the resistance. The financial elite and their EU collaborators are
determined to diminish and ultimately eliminate any challenge by Russia and the BRICS as these
countries move to counter the neoliberal financial agenda.
"The buildup of NATO air and ground forces along the borders of Russia in eastern Europe and
President Barack Obama's American power-influencing trip to Asia have a single purpose,"
Wayne Madsen wrote earlier this month. "The seen and unseen forces who dictate policy to
their political puppets in Washington, London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and other vassal
capital cities have decided to smash BRICS – the emergent financial power bloc
encompassing Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa."
In his foreign policy Trump looks like a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy
is a Deep State controlled republican. Why is the Deep State is attacking him is completely unclear. May be they just do not like unpredictable,
inpulsive politicians
Despite his surrender "Neocon crazies from the basement" still attack his exactly the same way as they attacked him for pretty
mundane meeting with Putin and other fake "misdeeds" like Ukrainegate
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans and former Sanders supporters, who voted
for him in 2016 to block Hillary election.
And in no way he is an economic nationalist. He is "national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on
treaties and prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties. And his "fight" with the Deep state
resemble so closely to complete and unconditional surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two. Most of
his appointees are rabid neocons. Just look at Pompeo, Bolton, Fiona Hill. That that extends far beyond those obvious crazies.
Washington Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his discussions with Russian President
Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private
conversation in Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which only the leaders and their translators
were present -- as "a great conversation" that included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the president of various countries. I
do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed by Republicans. "The Washington Post
is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump said. When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York
Times report that the FBI had opened an inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you
ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?" "I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think
it's the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting
that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good relations
with Russia again!"
The early winter holidays are notorious for giving people the blues, but as the last
Thanksgiving leftovers slide into the stockpot, the Democratic Party was put on suicide watch .
Is the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein in charge? It's a little late to call an exorcist.
The gun pointed at the Democrats' head now is a stubby little low-caliber weapon in the
person of Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who has only grazed the
party's skull in two previous misfirings. The third time, the old saying goes, may be the
charm.
When Mr. Nadler entertained Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July, he succeeded
spectacularly in discrediting Mr. Mueller, and the inquisition he rode in on . It was the worst
public demonstration of aphasia since William Jennings Bryan had a stroke at the Scopes Trial
in 1925. Mr. Mueller's pitiful performance put to rest the last sticky tendril of hope that his
tortured report might avail to cast out the arch-demon in the White House. Even the Republicans
on the dais seemed to feel sorry for him. True to his character as a schoolyard sap wearing a
"kick me" sign on his back, Mr. Nadler just waddled away in a fog of bamboozlement, hitching
his pants up to his sternum, to plot his next foolish move .
Which was to haul former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski into the committee in
September. Mr. Lewandowski's performance was the equivalent of watching poor Mr. Nadler get
hitched to the rear bumper of a Lincoln Navigator and dragged over several miles of broken Coke
bottles. And yet, ever-sturdy, like one of those plastic punching dummies with all its weight
on the bottom, Mr. Nadler just popped back up, adjusted his "kick me" sign, and moved on to his
next folly: the current comedy of errors around impeachment.
Really, the only question now is what new way will Mr. Nadler find to humiliate himself and
mortify his party? Opening testimony this week will be supplied by a panel of Woke
constitutional law professors who will attempt to tease out some hermeneutic legal basis for an
impeachment other than actual misdeeds. They'll surely settle on thought-crime, since there is
nothing else. Whose idea was it to hit the snooze button just as the curtain goes up on the
show?
Next will come a mighty hassle over whether the minority can call witnesses of its own
choosing. Ranking member Doug Collins (R-GA) has already asked for an appearance by Adam
Schiff, chair of the House Intel Committee, whose procedural shenanigans last month embarrassed
anyone with a vestigial memory of Anglo-American due process. Some folks think that Mr. Schiff
has got some 'splainin' to do about the predicating circumstances of his star chamber
spectacle. He is, in fact, a fact-witness to all that, on top of being the issuer today of his
own committee's report on all that, and therefore susceptible to public examination --
especially in a train of proceedings as grave as impeachment. If Mr. Nadler enables Mr. Schiff
to slither out of testifying, there will be hell to pay, and in the not-so-likely prospect of
an actual impeachment trial in the senate, it would be paid there as an unleashed defense goes
for Mr. Schiff with pithing needles and thumbscrews of genuine interrogation.
NEVER MISS
THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
Then there is the "Whistleblower," this would-be pimpernel of perfidy hiding behind Adam
Schiff's apron under the false assertion that he is entitled to everlasting anonymity. What an
idea under our system of jurisprudence! In fact, contrary to Mr. Schiff's public
pronouncements, there is no law that states what he claims -- one of several things Mr. Schiff
can be called to account for. And that is even if you accept the dishonest proposition that the
fugitive who started this fiasco even was a whistleblower, rather than a rogue CIA officer
acting on explicitly illegal political motives to interfere in the 2020 election . The CIA, you
must know, is forbidden by charter and statute from operating against American citizens,
including the president of the United States. Under the circumstances, the so-called
"Whistleblower" might fairly be accused of treason.
Has anyone failed to notice that one of the "Whistleblower's" attorneys, Mark Zaid, tweeted
notoriously on January 30, 2017 that " Coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion.
#impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers ." Mr. Zaid later explained, "I was referring to
a completely lawful process." Yeah, sure. I think he meant a completely Lawfare process . Of
course, the engineered "Whistleblower" escapade was only the latest (perhaps the last) chapter
in the annals of nefarious events and actions carried out far-and-wide by several government
agencies for three years, and by many officials working within them, and not a few freelance
rogues in their service. There is no more accurate way to describe all that except as a coup.
The authorities looking into all that have not been heard from yet. The portentous silence is
making a lot of people in Washington edgy.
If the various House committees have put the Democratic Party on suicide watch, then
something even more deadly is lurking just offstage. Hillary Clinton is making noises about
jumping into the 2020 election. She senses opportunity as Joe Biden goes pitifully through the
motions of running for office to avoid prosecution for his international grifting operations as
Veep. Think of Hillary as the cyanide capsule that the party might actually choose to bite down
on as the year ominously turns.
Not really a death wish,just ignorance.Walter Hooper told CS Lewis about the epitaph of a
notable atheist'All dressed up and no place to go'To which Lewis replied,'I'll bet he wishes
that were so...'
People who believe that the democrats are doomed are ignoring a very important and large
part of the equation---the democrat base is the most ignorant, brainwashed and insane group
of people the world has ever seen.
Sure, the DNC is a clown show and tragedy of errors. But it doesn't matter when a
significant % of the population is incapable of perceiving anything close to reality.
It is not going to work any longer. Talk of "Democrats" or "Republicans". The world is
rapidly getting wise. It is the Zionists who own and run both parties...
Republicans instead want to mire Democrats in a sloppy fight, making the hearings into such
a confusing mishmash of competing information that even Republicans troubled by Mr. Trump's
actions see no upside in breaking with him. They plan to take advantage of early impeachment
advocacy by Mr. Nadler and Democrats on the panel to portray the Ukraine matter as simply
another attempt by Mr. Trump's critics to take him down.
"Any article to come out of this? There is no world in which a Republican, especially on the
Judiciary Committee, will accept this," Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel's top
Republican, said in an interview. "We have seen this sideshow up close all year."
Joining Mr. Collins on Republicans' side of the dais are some of the most ardent culture
warriors and defenders of Mr. Trump: Louie Gohmert of Texas, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Andy Biggs
of Arizona and Jim Jordan of Ohio, who led
the president's defense in the Intelligence Committee . They have already shown a flair for
the dramatic, organizing conservative lawmakers to
storm the Intelligence Committee's secure chambers in a stunt to stall the proceedings,
which they called a "kangaroo court."
Mr. Collins, a Georgia lawyer with an auctioneer's cadence and a lawyer's knack for tripping
up committee business with time-consuming parliamentary tactics, is ready to make the
proceedings as painful as possible for Democrats. He warned that if Mr. Nadler intended to jam
articles of impeachment through the committee, he would go down in history as "a giant rubber
stamp" for Ms. Pelosi and Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence
Committee chairman.
Trump called the Democrats bluff when he released the transcript. That changed their
narrative and destroyed their strategy. Now they can impeach and take it to the Senate. They
won't. They know that is where their continuous charade will be exposed for what it really
is. Nothing more than the slander that was Stormy, Mueller, obstruction, Blasey-Ford, racism,
homophobia, misogyny, collusion, et. al.
I'm beginning to see this impeachment circus as it was practiced in the Soviet Union; present
an obvious political accusations to rub out an opponent and have the rest of the minions pile
on to approve an beforehand agreed upon verdict. Yes this is and will be a circus made for
MSNBC.
So, "this spring", Representative Nadler was asking his (Democratic) colleagues on the
Judiciary panel whether "given the facts before us", they were "heading toward" impeaching
the President. This question was put, of course, weeks if not months before the presidential
conversation with the Ukrainian President that now has them all in a partisan froth. This
proves that for the Democrats, impeachment has always been more a political cause looking for
a reason, than a response to high crimes. That makes this the equivalent to the Clinton
impeachment, generally now acknowledged to have been a political mistake for the Republicans.
That's why the Speaker has been reluctant to allow this process to go forward, and should be
something to keep in mind for Representative Nadler as well.
The GOP line of defense - that the deep state is out to get him - is both nonsense and true.
There is the old saying that it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. In that
context Trump and his minions do have a point. We really are out to get him. From the
beginning of his bizarre, crude, confabulating campaign, a majority of Americans have opposed
him. That's called democracy, not a deep state conspiracy. Trump's lack of fitness,
temperament and preparation are self-evident. Robert Mueller's report cited broad cooperation
with a foreign power in election tampering and highlighted at least 10 instances of
obstruction of justice that might be prosecuted if not for the Justice Department memo
suggesting that a sitting president may not be indicted. It is not a stretch to compare this
bizzaro world to a story of organized crime figures whining that the cops are just out to get
them and those darned reporters just keep printing photos of the bodies and blood. It's just
so unfair!
Here's an an interesting idea for Democrats to ponder: Suppose Trump is impeached and then
Pelosi did NOT immediately send the case to the Senate, but instead declared it would be
wrong to hold a trial in a hot election year, but that it could be picked up later. Of
course, Trump would yell bloody murder about his "right" to a speedy trial but no such right
exists, and besides, didn't McConnell invoke the same in the Merrick Garland case? This would
leave Trump twisting in the wind while the Dems pursued their winning kitchen table agenda.
Of course, a Democratic victory would make the case moot while a Democratic defeat would
still leave the option open to try and remove him. Your thoughts?
How can the White House put up a defense when it's unclear what the charges are? While
witnesses who testified during the impeachment inquiry presented many reasons why they think
Americans should not vote for Trump in 2020, none of them alleged the president committed
treason, bribery or a high crime or misdemeanor. (People who disagree should cite testimony.)
Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that he put "two and two together" and "presumed" that
the president would refuse to meet with President Zelensky at the White House unless Zelensky
publicly announced he was investigating Burisma and the Bidens. The two presidents met at the
United Nations instead of the White House. The expectation that the Senate will remove the
president from office for meeting Zelensky at the UN instead of the White House is
delusional. Committee Chairman Adam Schiff coaxed witness Fiona Hill into recounting a
childhood incident in which her classmates set her pigtails ablaze, but it's unclear whether
the articles of impeachment will alleged Trump had anything to do with the incident.
"When all is said and done, given the facts before us, are we heading toward impeaching this
president?" You tell lies: The Democratic Party, and its supporters, have called for
impeachment since the day after Trump's election. It's not based on "facts." The premise of
this article is that the Democrats were struggling with a decision about whether to impeach
or not. The premise is false and insincere because the decision to impeach the president was
made before he ever took office. In addition, "The Blue Wave" Democrats ran on impeaching the
president. It was a campaign promise. So there was no struggle to decide. The only "struggle"
was how to present it so it would succeed.
With a Senate acquittal guaranteed, and McConnell skilled at putting on a circus, it's crazy
to impeach Trump and hand the torch to the GOP. The smarter path would be to broadcast to the
public that we know the game is rigged and we're not playing. Pass a strong censure and get
back to campaigning on the kitchen table issues that won the House in 2018. We have both a
winning and a losing formula. Choose to win!
"... The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. ..."
"... I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out. ..."
Stephen Kinzer
comments on the creation of a new think tank, The Quincy Institute, committed to promoting a foreign policy of restraint and
non-interventionism:
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of this think tank
harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence
Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom
and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy
based on that live-and-let-live principle.
The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats,
sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and
this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. The lack of institutional support has put advocates of peace and restraint
at a disadvantage for a very long time, so it is encouraging to see that there is an effort underway to change that. The Quincy Institute
represents another example of how antiwar progressives and conservatives can and should work together to change U.S. foreign policy
for the better. The coalition opposed to the war on Yemen showed what Americans opposed to illegal and unnecessary war can do when
they work towards a shared goal of peace and non-intervention, and this institute promises to be an important part of such efforts
in the future. Considering how long the U.S. has been
waging war without end
, there couldn't be a better time for this.
TAC readers and especially readers of this blog will be familiar with the people involved in creating the think tank:
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors
-- Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation -- have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million
budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
Among Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent
decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim;
and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.
"The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized
approach to policy," Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore
the pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
Trita Parsi and Andrew Bacevich are both TAC contributors and have participated in our foreign policy conferences in recent
years. Parsi and I were on the same panel last fall at our most recent conference. I have also cited and learned from arguments made
by Suzanne DiMaggio and Stephen Wertheim in my
posts here . Their involvement is a
very good sign, and it shows both the political breadth and intellectual depth of this new institution. I look forward to seeing
what they do, and I wish them luck.
Good luck. I hope you will be invited on cable shows. I am tired of seeing the beard from the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies
and his clones.
Once in a while the hosts mess up and they interview someone who doesn't give the correct answer about the M.E., or somewhere
else and I see the blank look on their face as they thank the guess as since it is obvious they cannot process the information.
I generally do not see those guests ever again.
The guidelines are, the world is divided into those who crave U.S. leadership and the evildoers who are constantly testing
our leadership. We must always be vigilant against the latter. It is inconceivable that anyone merely act in their own interest.
It is all about us.
I also am looking forward to reading their thoughts and ideas about a foreign policy that doesn't include the US invading yet
another country under the ridiculous notion that we are somehow being threatened by them. We have the largest military on earth.
It's also telling that we pick on and invade countries that can't actually hurt us. That makes us all the more the bully on the
block. It's to our shame that we even consider these shameful actions.
Exciting news. An early endeavor , if not already accomplished, should be consideration of relevant theoretical models for understanding
competition and cooperation. Since the Cold War and to the present day, variants of the Prisoners Dilemma serve this function.
Prior to that, misconceptions of survival of the fittest led to the disasters of eugenics and WW2. Maybe the new think tank will
outline or draw inspiration from a new theory.
Re: "I look forward to seeing what they do, and I wish them luck."
So do I. Very much so. However, the most prominent realist Washington Think Tank is the Cato Institute. It has well spoken
advocates of realism and restraint including Christopher Preble, Doug Bandow and Ted Galen Carpenter. Unfortunately, the thoughtful
Cato scribes get very little exposure on the MSM compared to the atrocious Heritage, AEI and Brookings nests of go along to get
along Neocon / Neoliberal lackeys. It's not clear to me how and why the Quincy Institute will generate any more leverage.
I've argued many times before that the linchpin of the busted U.S. Global Cop foreign policy model is the Pentagon. As long
as the Pentagon hacks are considered the paragons of Olympian insight and wisdom by the political class and the MSM, nothing will
change.
Related to that though, there actually was a hopeful article in the Atlantic about the newest Pentagon Big Mouth, CENTCOM Commander
General General Kenneth McKenzie:
Hopefully, that is a crack in the wall of Military Exceptionalism. The sooner others start taking a 2x4 to the sanctified occupants
of the 5-Sided Pleasure Palace, knocking them off of their pedestals, the better.
BTW, the new Acting Defense Secretary and MIC Parasite Mark Esper is no friend of the taxpayers. Expect that failed Pentagon
audit that was deep-sixed by Mad Dog Mattis to stay deep-sixed with Esper in the Big Seat.
I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out.
Jeez, who can believe this amongst the "think" tanks: "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than
threats, sanctions, and bombing"
"... Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak , "Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November 10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal U.S. President who was his predecessor. ..."
"... The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of America's war to conquer Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy, but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for Congress to force Trump out of office. ..."
"... a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. ..."
"... But right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship. ..."
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy
in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama's anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's
Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S.
had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow that -- they want to force him to
accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine's troops in how to use them
against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal
U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make
a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times.
This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried
hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office.
Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly
have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies,
whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable.
But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of
the Electoral College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it
has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy
of wealth controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the
Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as
constituting our Government, today.
Trump can easily turn the table on his impeachment assuers calling Ukranian "Revolution of
Dignity" what it was: the smashing of constitutional order and installing far right junta. But he
will never do that.
New
York Times is reporting that Trump was aware of the whistleblower memo when he decided to
resume military aid to Ukraine. But after hearing the testimonies of William B. Taylor,
Alexander Vindman, and Fiona Hill, it appears few, if any, Americans changed their mind about
the conclusions they had already reached. Support and opposition to impeachment is the same as
it was before two weeks of public testimony about Ukraine and Trump. According to CNN , nine
in every ten Americans polled say they feel "very strongly" about their opinion.
Trump has been making several moves to try and insulate himself from the inquiry. For one
thing, he is seeking to distance himself from his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, telling Bill
O'Reilly in an interview that he was not aware of his activities in Ukraine: "No, I didn't
direct him. But he's a warrior. Rudy's a warrior. Rudy went. He possibly saw something." He
added, "Rudy has other clients, other than me." The Justice Department has also asked for a
stay on the ruling that former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress.
Most importantly, the Republican base shows no signs of abandoning Trump. "They're pushing
that impeachment witch hunt. A lot of bad things are happening to them. You see what's
happening in the polls? Everybody said, 'That's really bullshit!'" Trump
said at a campaign rally last night in Sunrise, Florida. The crowd cheered and responded
with chants of "Bullshit! Bullshit!"
Since the beginning of October, polls show no less than 80
percent of Democrats have supported impeachment, no more than 48 percent of independents have,
and no more than 10 percent of Republicans have. Absent a major revelation expect these numbers
to stay right where they are. The presidential election, not impeachment, is what's likely to
determine Trump's fate in 2020.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest .
Will Democrats actually impeach a president of the US without cause/crime? DC's unholy
trinity, (Democrats, media, and the Deep State) don't want their coup to look like a
coup, so they gin up plausible offenses that fall short of treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors. The problem? The left's media narrative relies on nothing
but opening statements from their hearings -- and leaks from Democrats themselves. The
self-described goal of Mr. Schiff's hearings is to impeach and remove from office a
President elected by 63 million Americans. This requires more transparency and public
scrutiny than Mr. Schiff's unprecedented process of secret testimony, followed by
selective leaks to the friendly media to put everything in the most anti-Trump light, in
order to sway public opinion. But a process that denies the president his rights and
pushes through impeachment without a crime, to exert control over the president, will
effectively subjugate the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch. Once Congress can
remove a president from office without cause, they will call the shots. Any future
president will govern under the threat of losing the Oval Office unless he goes along
with congressional oversight. Presidents will be commander in chief in name only, because
military/ foreign policy decisions will be subject to congressional review and approval,
Judicial appointments will not be limited to Senate approval, and presidential vetoes
will be a thing of the past. Impeachment without just cause would be a precedent for
Congress to overturn presidential elections at will, revoking the separation of powers,
checks and balances, and will have achieved tyranny.
The minority Republicans are not allowed to speak, call witnesses, or issue subpoenas.
They're powerless, have no legal options, and aren't part of this impeachment effort.
Stand up and walk out of the hearings. Expose the show trial for what it is, a Democrat
plot against the president, and a move to dismantle our Republic. As long as Republicans
allow themselves to be sidelined in these hearings, they make it appear a bipartisan
process, giving an air of legitimacy to this kangaroo court.
I am sick to death of our country, our freedom, and our Republic being used as political
capital. Walk out as an American to uphold your oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. "Liberty,
once lost, is lost forever." -- John Adams
Speak now, Republicans, or forever hold your peace.
Impeachment with flop like a boneless fish, just like Russiagate did. Of course, the
die-hard liberast progressive lunatics infesting the DNC won't admit to this, but then
why should they start embracing reality now?
Looking forward to another round of autistic screeching when Trump takes it again in
2020. I wonder who the demo-rats (and the Deep State) will choose to blame next time?
Maybe the Chinese? Maybe the "Proud Boys" and other so-called "White Extremists"? Maybe
anyone who doesn't "celebrate" LGBT degeneracy?
An Australian professor has been charged with implementing a bogus harassment campaign
against herself following the controversial cancellation of a degree program.
Dianne Jolley, a professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of
Technology Sydney, allegedly sent threatening letters to herself between May and September as a
protest against abolition of the degree in traditional Chinese medicine, university officials
believe.
According to Stuff.com, Jolley, who's also the school's Dean of Science, claimed that in
addition to the letters, various articles of clothing had been sent to her ... had clothes
stolen from her backyard.
As a result, "significant security measures" were put in place to protect the professor. But
after an investigation by Sydney Police, officials ended up charging Jolley with "obtaining a
financial advantage by deception, giving false information about a person or property in
danger, and making false representations resulting in a police investigation."
Jolley attorney Aaron Kerneghan said his client would plead "not guilty" to all charges.
"... Vindman appears to believe the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune from civilian challenge. ..."
"... After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated: ..."
"... Washington's roster of provocations is long and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected, pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then, Washington has made Ukraine a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver: ..."
"... Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a "coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West. ..."
"... In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed officer. ..."
"... And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above all, an affront to America's "national security." ..."
"... Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics) lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming Ukraine is dubious on the merits. ..."
...conservatives mustered something approaching a point: that Vindman appears to believe
the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune
from civilian challenge. Or, in the hysterical (and fundamentally
misleading) phrasing of Daily Caller deputy editor J. Arthur Bloom, "This impeachment stuff
is textbook imperial liberalism: the president is accused of thwarting U.S. foreign policy,
because they think foreign policy should not be subject to political control."
Now, there are a few problems with the claim, "Donald Trump is being impeached for nothing
more than challenging the national security Establishment's policy preferences." The biggest,
perhaps, being that Trump has actually done very little to challenge those preferences.
...In explaining why he found Trump's requests of Zelensky alarming enough to merit
reporting, Vindman said:
It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government
investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued
an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as
a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support,
undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region.
[my emphasis]
Vindman's analysis here is tendentious in several respects. For one, his assertion that an
investigation of Biden would "undoubtedly" result in the Democratic Party adopting a dovish
posture toward Russia is mere punditry (and given
the many partisan reasons Democrats have for adopting a hawkish policy toward Vladimir
Putin's regime, it's not even very good punditry). More critically, Vindman's statement
suggests that one of his objectives, as an active military officer, was to safeguard
"bipartisan support" for existing U.S. policy in Ukraine. Which is to say: He felt an
obligation to prevent partisan conflict from producing a change in the orders he received from
civilian leadership. That sentiment is genuinely anti-democratic. It's a forthright assertion
that U.S. policy in the region should not be subject to democratic dispute.
This is a contemptible notion in the abstract. And it's even more so in this particular
context. After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in
preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American
media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato
Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has
written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated:
Washington's roster of provocations is long
and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably
eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the
three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the
Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to
expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and
its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war
games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered
blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected,
pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then,
Washington has made Ukraine
a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with
Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev.
In this context of persistent Western interference in its border regions, John Mearsheimer
argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver:
Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in
recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically
important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of
Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a
"coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would
host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to
join the West.
... one can also argue that America has no significant security or economic interests in who
governs a relatively small, poor country on Russia's border. Or that intervening against Russia
in Ukraine's civil war -- when our country will never be willing to invest as much blood and
treasure into that conflict as Moscow will -- is only going to prolong the fighting and get
more innocent people killed. Or that the U.S. government's finite resources would be better
spent on more classrooms for American children than anti-tank missiles for Ukrainian
soldiers.
In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that
argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national
security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed
officer.
And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its
impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above
all, an
affront to America's "national security." This emphasis is likely dictated by
Democrats' desire to attach impeachment to a maximally nonpartisan cause. For the bulk of
elected Democrats' lifetimes, countering Russian aggression has been the transpartisan national
purpose par excellence. Further, the national security officials willing to blow the whistle on
Trump tend to be more comfortable denouncing the president's activities on Ukraine's behalf
than on Joe Biden's. Like Vindman, acting Ukraine ambassador
Bill Taylor framed his objections to Trump's "quid pro quo" around the needs of the
Ukrainian military, rather than the constitutional authorities of the U.S. Congress.
But Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics)
lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming
Ukraine is dubious on the merits. And premising the case for Trump's impeachment on that notion
is politically misguided.
Warren Wealth Tax Has Wide Support, Except
Among One Group https://nyti.ms/37OZEEH
NYT - Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley
Nov. 29, 2019, 5:00 a.m. ET
(graphs at the link)
Senator Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax the assets of America's wealthiest individuals
continues to draw broad support from voters, across party, gender and educational lines. Only
one slice of the electorate opposes it staunchly: Republican men with college degrees.
Not surprisingly, that is also the profile of many who'd be hit by Ms. Warren's so-called
wealth tax, which has emerged as the breakout economic proposal in the Democratic
presidential primary race.
Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it, the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll conducted by the online research firm
SurveyMonkey for The New York Times. That support has dipped slightly since July, but Ms.
Warren's plan remains more popular than most proposed tax increases, and its appeal across
coalitions is unusual among high-profile campaign proposals.
(The link provided to the 'new poll' is non-functional.)
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has also proposed a wealth tax, which would hit more
taxpayers than Ms. Warren's version, and several other candidates have announced their own
plans to raise taxes on the rich, with varying degrees of detail.
The other policy plan dominating the primary debate so far -- the conversion to a
government-financed health care system known as "Medicare for all" -- enjoys narrower support
that breaks much more cleanly along party lines. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it.
Independents favor it two to one, and Democrats support it by an even higher ratio.
As the Democratic contest barrels toward the first caucuses in Iowa and beyond, the
polling continues to show a racial fissure on the subject of the economy, with nonwhite
Democrats expressing more concern about their economic situations than white Democrats. Those
more anxious voters are less likely to support Ms. Warren, or her wealth tax, a dynamic that
could prove consequential as Democrats winnow their field.
Here are three takeaways on Democratic voters, policy proposals and the role of the
economy in the campaign.
College-educated Republican men take exception to a wealth tax.
The wealth tax has lost a few points of support since the last time The Times asked about
the issue, in July. But it remains broadly popular, even more so than it was in February.
Three-quarters of Democrats and more than half of Republicans say they approve of the idea of
a 2 percent tax on wealth above $50 million.
Support for a wealth tax cuts across many of the demographic dividing lines in American
politics. Men and women like it. So do the young and the old. The proposal receives majority
support among every major racial, educational and income group.
College-educated Republican men, though, disapprove of it by a 15-point margin -- though a
vast majority of Republican men with college degrees would have a net worth below the tax
threshold. (College-educated Republican women approve of the policy by an even wider margin
than their male counterparts oppose it.)
One note that might give Republicans pause: The wealth tax is much more popular than the
tax-cut package that President Trump signed in 2017, which only 45 percent of Americans in
this Times survey said was a good move. That's a decline from April, when the law was drawing
slightly more approval than disapproval.
The movement against the Trump tax cuts since then has been powered, oddly enough, by
Republicans. They largely still back the law -- by 76 percent over all, compared with 20
percent of Democrats -- but that support has dropped six percentage points since April.
The shift appears most pronounced among high-earning Republicans, and it contributes to a
striking contrast in tax-plan approval: Americans earning more than $150,000 a year are far
more likely to favor a tax increase on the very wealthy than a package of tax cuts that
delivered the bulk of its benefits to the rich.
Education and race divide Democrats on economic policy.
Among Democrats, education has emerged as a key dividing line on economic policy. Ms.
Warren's tax is overwhelmingly popular (86 percent support) with Democratic voters who have
graduate degrees. Among voters with a high school diploma or less, the policy is still
popular, but meaningfully less so, drawing 75 percent support.
Accordingly, less-educated voters are also less likely to say they favor Ms. Warren on the
economy. That fits with other polling that has found the Massachusetts senator struggling to
win over voters without a college degree.
Strikingly for a candidate who has put so much emphasis on the economy, Ms. Warren is
viewed with caution by voters who care the most about the economy, and by those who are most
worried about it. Among Democrats who say they are "very concerned" about losing their job,
for example, 15 percent say they would trust Ms. Warren most on the economy out of all the
Democratic candidates, compared with 23 percent of other Democratic voters.
Those struggles for Ms. Warren may partly reflect another important divide in the
Democratic electorate: race. Black and Hispanic voters tend to rate the economy more highly
as an issue than their white counterparts. They are also less likely to trust Ms. Warren on
the economy.
Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to choose former Vice President Joseph R. Biden
Jr. as the candidate they would trust on the economy. So are voters who say they are
concerned about their jobs or their economic prospects. But voters' preferences don't fall
neatly along ideological lines: Those same groups also tend to give high ratings to Mr.
Sanders, who is closer to Ms. Warren than to Mr. Biden on most policy matters.
The survey suggests that the newest member of the Democratic field, former Mayor Michael
R. Bloomberg of New York, may have at least a narrow opening with voters on economic issues.
About 6 percent of Democrats said they trusted Mr. Bloomberg most on the economy, putting him
outside the four-person top tier (Mr. Biden, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg
of South Bend, Ind.) but ahead of the rest of the field.
Mr. Bloomberg drew less support on his handling of health care and international affairs,
however. The other late entrant to the race, former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, was
well outside the top tier of candidates on all three issues. The findings on that question
came after Mr. Patrick entered the race and after Mr. Bloomberg filed paperwork for a
presidential bid; he formally announced his candidacy later in the month.
Health care remains a partisan issue.
Apart from taxes, health care policy has been perhaps the most significant point of
disagreement among the Democratic candidates. Among the top tier of candidates, Mr. Sanders
and Ms. Warren have emphasized their support for a government-run insurance system that they
call Medicare for all, while Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg have argued for less significant
changes to the existing system.
Compared with the wealth tax, Medicare for all is a much more partisan issue. Republicans
strongly oppose the idea; Democrats even more strongly support it. (Independents support it,
too, but by a narrower margin.)
And Medicare for all doesn't divide Democrats the way the wealth tax does. Democrats of
all ages, races and education and levels support the policy by similar margins.
Warren Wealth Tax Could Slow Economy,
Early Analysis Finds https://nyti.ms/379cpJZ
NYT - Jim Tankersley - Nov. 14, 2019
WASHINGTON -- Senator Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax would slow the United States
economy, reducing growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points a year over the course of a decade,
an outside analysis of the plan estimates.
The preliminary projection from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which was unveiled on
Thursday in Philadelphia, is the first attempt by an independent budget group to forecast the
economic effects of the tax that has become a centerpiece of Ms. Warren's campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination.
The assessment found that if the tax raised as much new federal revenue as Ms. Warren
intends, and if the proceeds went toward reducing the federal debt, annual economic growth
would slow from an average of 1.5 percent to an average of just over 1.3 percent over a
decade.
The model did not assess growth effects from Ms. Warren's spending plans, which critics
said undercut its findings. Economists who favor Ms. Warren's plan said the analysis did not
accurately account for the economic boost from programs she would fund with the tax revenue,
including universal child care, increased education funding and student loan forgiveness.
Instead, it assumed that the tax revenue would be used to reduce the national debt, a move
that encourages growth in the Penn Wharton simulation. Had the Penn Wharton model factored in
the money's going into programs rather than paying down debt, it most likely would have
produced an even larger drag on growth from the wealth tax.
The model builds on the one that Penn Wharton used to evaluate the tax cuts that President
Trump signed in 2017. That model estimated that the tax cuts would increase economic growth
by roughly 0.06 percentage points per year over a decade, an effect that was much smaller
than White House officials predicted.
Its estimate of Ms. Warren's policy implies the wealth tax would have an effect that is
three times as large as the Trump tax cuts -- but in the opposite direction.
Ms. Warren's plan would impose an annual tax of 2 percent on assets held by Americans,
including stocks and real estate, that total more than $50 million. It would add an
additional 1 percent tax on assets of more than $1 billion. Ms. Warren has said her plan
would raise nearly $3 trillion over a decade.
The proposal has drawn fierce criticism from wealthy Americans, including several titans
of Wall Street. Ms. Warren has delighted in those complaints, splicing some of them into a
campaign commercial that she is set to air on the financial news network CNBC this week.
"I've heard that there are some billionaires that don't support this plan," Ms. Warren
says in the ad, which proceeds to deride several of the plan's critics for financial ties to
Republicans. "All we're saying," she says in conclusion, "is when you make it big, pitch in
two cents so everybody else gets a chance to make it."
Ms. Warren's campaign worked with Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the
University of California, Berkeley, who support a wealth tax, to estimate how much money it
could raise over a decade. But they did not produce what economists call a dynamic analysis,
which estimates how the proposal would ripple through the economy and affect growth. ...
'Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it,
the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll
conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey
for The New York Times.'
'Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it,
the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll
conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey
for The New York Times.'
Stephen Cohen (one of the few pundits who actually knows something about Russia:)
"Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things
about Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the
process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic
Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no "attack"
in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both
Russia and America have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more
phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And
yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse,
campaigning, and fund-raising.
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President
Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation
"Intelgate," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in
his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally
Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions.
This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but
these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be
fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his
appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's critics
accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report.
And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about
Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly
endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US
missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and
urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if he
is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his
predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge" accusations
still being directed at him?"
The Russia thingie/falsehoods are part of corrupt demrats assault on the US constitution.
They are even now predicting their loss in 2020 due to "interference" and people wanting to
know how corrupt the DNC [front running] select has been!
Demrat allies in the shadow revolving door government of neocon humbug factories are
denouncing Trump for his ignoring their war mongering imperial objects.
[Adding assault to injury? The US Constitution was damning enough on its own. What are
they thinking inside the deep state apparatus? Don't they know that power and privilege is
reserved for holders of wealth by the US Constitution? Who do they think that they are really
working for?]
Friend ilsm may be less nuts than it appears, but friend ilsm is not less incomprehensible
than it appears. Would it be out of place to thank you for ilsm's sake?
Our two-party system was largely useless after FDR, but our two-party system has been
largely destructive since 1968. Let me know if anything really changes.
not that I would be ordinarily predisposed to defend her. The problem with delusions is that
they can easily become self-perpetuating, even easier with the right hand on the tiller.
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
This is not a story I was told
When all the people are made out of wood
They build their houses of bones
Sail away, Oh sail away
The edge of the world is near
Sail away, Oh sail away from here
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
All the cigarettes are hand rolled
Nothing is bought and nobody is sold
And everything's made of gold
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
There a man with wounds I did see
Said: I do not want to escape from reality
I want reality to escape from me
"... 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. ..."
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.
Translation:
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".
Translation:
"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.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Gmason
,
Why is ok to expose Manafort's corruption to take down Trump, but not ok to expose Hunter Biden's?
That is inconsistent and hypocritical.
Robbobbobin
,
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?
summitflyer
,
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 .
Paul
,
There was one man – backed by a very powerful organisation who worked tirelessly to prevent Trump
becoming President. That was Christopher Steele ...
Jen
,
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
,
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
,
Yes that is what I heard and read also at the time .That was before the coup .
Mistaron
,
Russia had also arranged a $3 billion loan to Yanukovych govt.
Jen
,
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
,
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
,
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
,
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.
Clone
,
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
,
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
,
The Italian government, defeated in the last elections, also made an enormous 'donation' to the
Clinton Foundation.
Chris Williams
,
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.
Michael Cromer
,
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
,
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.
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!
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?
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)
,
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.
Francis Lee
,
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
,
Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan.
I'll let Wikipedia tell folks all they need to
know about Kagan; I'm too busy holding my nose to stop breathing in the toxic fumes the
couple emits.
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
,
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.
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
"... November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization, from far-right to far-left. ..."
"... After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution. ..."
"... Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik, will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting land]," said Bortnik, ..."
"... "But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2] ..."
"... Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. ..."
"... For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share" was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate. ..."
"... Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates. ..."
November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the
IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural
lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular
decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization,
from far-right to far-left.
After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only
asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from
the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill
on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish
the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution.
Ukraine's fertile soil up for grabs
It has long been known that Ukraine's soil is very fertile. Indeed, during WW2 the invading Nazis made a point of appropriating
quantities of it; forcing POWs to collect the top soil and load it onto trains en route to Germany. Now these same lands could fall
into the hands of international agro-holdings.
Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power
under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik,
will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting
land]," said Bortnik,
"But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model
is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At
least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition
under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2]
Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable
to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. Obviously,
their financial desperation will mean that many will have to sell their land at a low price, certainly well below the market value.
Meanwhile, Ukraine remains the poorest country on the continent of Europe and Ukrainian agricultural land remains the cheapest. Moreover,
the lands may be bought up as repaying large loans collected by the Kiev government following the Euromaidan coup in 2014.
This scheme of buying up Ukraine's land is connected with the ongoing corruption scandal in the US: the one related to Joe Biden
and the gas company 'Burisma'. At the end of November, Ukrainian MPs (non-factional people's deputy Andrey Derkach; a deputy from
the Batkivshchyna Party Aleksey Kucherenko; and a deputy from the ruling Servant of the People party, Aleksandr Dubinsky) revealed
it at the press-conference [3].
The point here is that the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Nikolay Zlochevsky , an owner of "Burisma" gas company, in 2014
introduced a number of Western politicians to the board of directors of his company, which helped him to avoid accusations of corruption.
Hunter Biden , son of former US Vice President Joe Biden , received monthly large payments for his "consultancy services". As a result
Ukraine's General prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the corruption schemes of the company, was forced – under
pressure – to resign by Joe Biden, who even boasted about it in the US media.
Ukrainian MPs have now claimed at a press-conference that the money used to bribe the son of the former Vice President of the
United States was in fact stolen. "Biden received money, the source of which is not the successful activity of Burisma, brilliant
business moves, or recommendations. It is the money of the citizens of Ukraine. It was obtained by criminal means," said the MP Andrey
Derkach. The ultimate goal of all this fraud, in which the Bidens were deeply involved, will be the bankruptcy of Ukraine in 2020-2021,
through the formation of a pyramid of public debt.
Laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine
According to Ukrainian deputies, this was a part of a bigger laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine via Latvian banks
and the fund 'Franklin Templeton Investments,' which is close to the United States Democratic Party. The founder of the foundation,
John Templeton Jr., was one of the main sponsors of the campaign of former US President Barack Obama.
For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share"
was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's
general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton
Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate.
The principle of this scheme is that with the assistance of American funds, the laundered money was legalised and invested in
government bonds at 6-8% in dollars and 15-17% in Ukrainian currency (hryvnia). This is leading to enormous growth in the Ukrainian
public debt and eventually the bankruptcy of the country's economy.
Eventual bankruptcy of the economy
Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these
debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards
the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates.
According to him, bankruptcy on the debts could happen by the end of 2020 or 2021.
And this scheme is connected with land privatization, as adopted by Kiev in November in accordance with the IMF demand. "DGBs
are a financial instrument by which the state owes all its property when paying off the DGB. And if the land market is opened, the
state will have no other valuable property, with the exception of land," said Dubinsky, demanding the suspension of debt payments
to international creditors.
As a result of this unpopular land reform and the widespread violations of labour rights, Ukraine's trade-unions called a general
strike [5] for November 14 and began preparations. For the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, a strike committee was
formed at the all-national level. This committee was joined by trade unions, individual entrepreneurs, small businesses, agricultural
producers and farmers.
Management fires workers, pays themselves millions in bonuses
On November 14, Ukrainian railroad workers protested [6] in front of the Presidential office in Kiev against the announced plans
to fire some 50% of railroad personnel. The workers demanded the railroad management should resign instead. The deputy head of the
railroad trade-union, Alexander Mushenok, recently said [7] that currently "only 20 workers are employed where 60 workers are needed."
At the same time the workers claim that the top-level management of the company are paying themselves millions in bonuses. One of
the IMF demands requires that the Kiev authorities privatize the railroad system as well. In practice, this means that the few profitable
routes will be privatized by western companies, while the majority of non-profitable routes – to poorly developed provinces – will
remain state-owned, making the railway transport even less profitable.
The entire course of privatization, as promoted by the IMF, can be summarized by the principle 'privatization of profits, nationalization
of losses." And the new Kiev government is far too dependent to protest against the imposition of this policy; however, this will
effectively mean that this government will lose its credibility and trustworthiness among the people.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
Republicans are actually afraid to ask questions about Obama administration smashing constitutional order in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty" NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks. ..."
"... Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine? ..."
"... Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all the way to the bank. ..."
What was inescapable during the hearing was the absence of parliamentary courtesy or simply personal gracious
conduct on the part of Chair of the Committee who was consistently intrusive as he overstepped his role with
arbitrary, prejudicial
violations of Roberts Rules of
Order.
Schiff
routinely ruled Points of Order
to be out of
order with an inflated sense of magisterial presence. His demeanor proved to be classless and boorish as if he had
been granted special dispensation from the House of Representative's Code of Conduct to treat his colleagues with
disdain and contempt.
Schiff routinely
refused to 'recognize
' a Member,
liberally gavelled his authority to cut off debate and at times,
badgered Republican witnesses
and further treated
Republican Members, who are his peers, as second class citizens in what was once regarded as a collegial body.
Once the dust settles, the House Ethics Committee may ultimately weigh in on Schiff's character and the manner in
which he conducted the Committee's business.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount
of support is hugely appreciated.
ttshasta
,
The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty"
NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should
be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks.
I also forwarded Eva Bartlett's October pice on her
Crimea visit describing 200 new kindergartens and new airports and bridges to my friends who think I'm
crazy for saying Crimea has been part of Russia since 1784 and voted 90+% to rejoin Russia. Max
Blumenthal's Grayzone reports 4 million have left Ukraine, an exodus like Venezuela's. Adam Schiff had a
$1000/$2500 per plate fundraiser at Ukrainian Igor Pasternaks home in D.C. Is Pasternak a weapons dealer,
I'm not sure? Who is involved in Ukraine: Manafort, Biden, Obama's Hochstein, CIA's Woolsey, US Favarov,
Crowdstrike, Firtash, John Kerry, and on and on.
Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in
IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by
Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine?
I do not like and did not vote for Orange Jesus, but it seems the Biden, Kerry, Obama, Clinton apparatus
has more to answer for regarding Ukraine. Adam Schiff drives me crazy with his misleading and witness
coaching; he did propose repealing Citizens United though, of which I approve if it is not a diversion
tactic.
Like anyone expects an Amerikastani to tell the truth about anything, ever, for any reason. Amerikastanis
are genetically incapable of it.
Ken
,
Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all
the way to the bank.
Berlin beerman
,
The fact that there are citizens who watch this and then believe that their President actually committed
an impeachable offense in the process is past comic. Its sad because it implies one of two things.
1. The masses who watch and believe are as evil as the woman they tried to elect to the White House.
and/or
2. The masses are complete idiots .
the fact that Mr.Trump may actually be trying to help their sorry asses – by trying to put the
American people ahead of corporate interests – is one thing these haters have no clue about. Instead they
prefer to sit, watch and partake in their elected fools waste time and money on infighting and stupidity
– ironically all the attributes they dislike in their President.
Its rather poetic.
Jack_Garbo
,
Not at all. Obama has impeccable (unimpeachable?) manners but he's a worse war criminal than Bush,
and he'll never be tried. As I said, look up impeachable offenses. Trump is (sadly) innocent, the
inquiry is a failed charade. Once out of office, he's eminently indictable, but that won't happen
either. His crimes are not relevant.
Guy
,
All this crap about impeachment , he said she said , and lets not forget it's all Russia's fault which
leads me to as ,what are they drawing our attention away from .Could it be the whole Epstein affair ,
nothing to see here folks .Move along ..all guilty as sin of course .
Vexarb
,
Seattle's multi-talented Amy Walker tried to do Trump and failed. I bet she cannot do Hilary either.
Their saurian corporate world of primal GREED & cold blooded FASCISM is too primitive for her. But she
can and did create Eunice. Here is Amy Walker's wickedly affectionate sketch, the most delicately
incisive probing of Yankee psyche since Gatsby -- and much more positive, in its well brought up, well
educated, well intentioned and naively earnest simplicity of mind.
PPPPS And finally, Eunice's simpleminded and muddleheaded search for authentic being is
absorbed and overlayed by the mawkish bloated U$ culture typified by this POTU$A election.
But Eunice is blithely unaware of all this; the machinations of Obomba, Killary and
Trumpety-trump are beneath her dignity and above her head.
There is an article of the Mawkish Culture of the U$A in today's Saker Vineyard; but the
creation of Eunice shows that mawkish culture has fine, sensitive, deep penetrating roots.
" Yanukovych when he refused to join the EU " Yanukovych did not refuse to join the European Union. The
Ukraine was not then, and is not now, in a position to join the European Union. What Yanukovych did was
decide to not proceed with an association agreement which the European Union and the Ukraine had been
negotiating.
Vexarb
,
Short list by Asdlkks above: "[Trump] The guy who sucked up to AIPAC and Zionists, who first day
in office goes to the CIA, then makes torture Queen director of the CIA, and former director of
the CIA his Secretary of State replacing Big Oil tycoon, who has stuffed every regulatory agency
with swamp creatures more swampy than Obama or any other President could manage, who INCREASED
military operations in the ME including making the rules of engagement such it is even easier to
slaughter civilians, who ran on a big military buildup including a buildup of nuclear weapons
far greater than Obama's "modernization" who has pledged now to greatly increase the
distribution of military equipment to police departments than has been occurring for decades
already, " plus Trump's association with 911 coverup Mayor Giuliani.
Admittedly not a heinous
crimesheet by POTU$A standards.
Listening to Elise Stefanik, was reminded of George Galloway's famous stoush with the U.S Senate back in
2005.
But as for Adam Schiff?
He is obviously a lettuce leaf short of a salad, a jam sandwich without the jam, and a person who quite
obviously needs to speak to someone wearing a white coat.
And with both being deluded Russophobes, I'm certain he and Fiona Hill would make a great team.
How much longer is This Crap going for??
Yarkob
,
as long as they need to constantly use the phrase "under the shadow of impeachment" throughout the
2020 election cycle
wardropper
,
I give it about 17 years before western civilization implodes under the sheer gravitational force of
the crap with which it has surrounded itself for many decades.
George Mc
,
And just think that, as the mass of population sinks deeper into poverty, how much money is being
thrown at this, as you say, Crap? And I am aware that This Crap is, if I may switch metaphors, only
the tip of the iceberg. How many gazillions are being thrown at destabilising various societies,
grinding out relentless propaganda, piling into bloated military juggernauts, glutinous showbiz,
sporting and royal festivals etc. (shepherd's crook approaches)
Martin Usher
,
My guess is that the committee will produce a report which won't be used to impeach the President but
will form a central plank of next year's election campaign. The Republicans are desperate to have
actual impeachment proceedings, they know that the Senate would not convict Satan himself if that
person was one of them and the resulting noise will draw attention away from some looming issues in
the economy and the world which may well break in Q1 next year.
I know there are a lot of people who
will support Trump no matter what and who are quick to point out the failings in other politicians.
There's plenty of crap to go round, however while Trump has been fiddling Rome has been burning --
remember, what might be good for industry lobbyists or could be construed as "God's Work" may not be
actually good policies and there signs that things might not be as wonderful as they'd like. Three
that spring to mind are the relentless money printing by the Fed, inflationary at best, the likelihood
that the heartland will experience significant job reductions in key industries that can't be papered
over and the fact that the tariffs and sanctions put on China don't seem to have had any significant
effect -- on the Chinese, that is (US companies, that's a different take). This isn't all Trump's
fault, the problems have been brewing up for a lot longer than his Presidency, but the complete lack
of action or even recognition that there are problems (China trade excepted) combined with a crass and
very ham-fisted approach to foreign policy is exacerbating things.
US of A twinned with Ukraine a marriage made in heaven. I'm at a loss to say who has the finest
democracy.
As Rhys said below "I can fuck your wife anytime I want, but you fuck my wife and you're fucked,
dude." . No wonder Victoria Nuland's name has been passed over in this shit show.
I was asked by a Russian today, "Which country has the best democracy?". To which I replied "First you
have to define what exactly a democracy is." And they said, "It's what you have in the West."
To which I could only remark, "I wish I had your innocence."
George Mc
,
"Which country has the best democracy? .It's what you have in the West."
Kind of answered his own question there. Wrongly of course.
George Cornell
,
Thanks for the summary. I did not watch, preferring to gaze at the peacock feathers in my duster. The
Dems are making Trump look less odious, no small feat.
"... Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, " ..."
"... According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul Manfort," ..."
"... Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal aide. ..."
"... He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump. ..."
"... Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal, unethical and unconscionable. ..."
"... Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the "whistleblower" complaint. ..."
"... Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member of the Intelligence committee. ..."
"... IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new "interpretive" guidelines. ..."
"... The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid mouthpieces for the Deep State. ..."
"... Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017, ..."
"... Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'" ..."
WASHINGTON, DC : Adam Schiff "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella has
been exposed as a John Brennan ally. An ally who actively worked to defame, target, and destroy
President Donald Trump during both the Obama and Trump administrations. He was fired from the
Trump White House for leaking confidential if not classified information detrimental to the
President. ( The Pajama Boy
Whistleblower Revealed – Rush Limbaugh )
The 33-year-old Ciaramella, a former Susan Rice protege, currently works for the CIA as an
analyst.
Eric Ciaramella: The Deep State non-whistleblower
During his time in the Obama White House, NSC Ciaramella worked under both Vice President
Joe Biden and CIA director John Brennan. He reported directly to NSC advisor Susan Rice through
his immediate boss, Charles Kupchan. Kupchan had extensive ties with Clinton crony Sydney
Blumenthal. Large portions of Blumenthal's disinformation from Ukrainian sources in 2016 was
used in the nefarious Steele Dossier.
Ciaramella also worked extensively with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa led the
effort at the DNC to fabricate a link between the Trump Campaign to Vladimir Putin and Russia.
According to Politico, Chalupa "met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia."
The DNC paid Chalupa $412,000 between 2004 and 2016.
DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa: Ciaramella co-conspirator
"Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, 'I felt there
was a Russia connection.'"
Apparently without any evidence. So she set out to concoct it.
Chalupa (left) also says that the Ukrainian embassy was working directly with reporters
digging for Trump-Russia ties. How convenient, and unethical.
Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits
the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles
Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, "
"Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a
foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to
influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials."
The FEC complaint against the DNC and Chalupa
In September 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission against the
DNC naming Alexandra Chalupa. The complaint alleges that Chalupa acted "improperly to gather
information on Paul Manafort and Donald Trump in the 2016 election".
According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa
with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul
Manfort,"
Fox News reporting, that Chalupa allegedly
"Pushed for Ukrainian officials to publicly mention Manafort's financial and political ties
to" Ukraine and "sought to have the Ukrainian government provide her information about
Manafort's work in the country."
John Solomon and Wikileaks both expose Chalupa as DNC operative
"Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information
from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country. Chalupa later
tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties
on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign."
Ciaramella's connection with John Brennan and Susan Rice
Eric Ciaramella had been working with John Brennan, Susan Rice, the Obama White House, and
Alexandra Chalupa to target and destroy Donald Trump well before he was elected. He was
initially brought into the NSC and the White House inner circle by John Brennan himself.
Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the
inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal
aide.
He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national
security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump.
Ciaramella and Alexander Vindman: the second "whistleblower"
Ciaramella's title at the White House was NSC Director for Ukraine. That position is now
held by the newest Schiff star witness and Trump hater Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Vindman is
apparently the "2nd whistleblower" to leak his concerns about the call between Trump and
President Zelensky to Ciaramella.
Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign
head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal,
unethical and unconscionable.
Violating clear national security guidelines for classified information.
Republicans, on cross-examination of Vindman was asked by Republicans cross-examining him
during the closed-door secret police hearings conducted by Adam Schiff, asking who Vindman had
contact with. Schiff cut off the questioning, coaching the witness while refusing to let him
answer the questions.
Schiff coordinated with Ciaramella and Vindman
It is now clear that Ciaramella and Vindman coordinated the entire whistleblower affair with
Schiff and his staff in violation of the "whistleblower" statute. That Ciaramella has been
coordinating his complaint with Schiff committee staffers Abigail Grace and Sean Misko.
Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and
Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the
"whistleblower" complaint.
Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting
on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member
of the Intelligence committee.
The suspicious case of IC IG Michael Atkinson
IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to
allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the
Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new
"interpretive" guidelines.
The level of subterfuge and coordination between Schiff, Ciaramella, Vindman, Abigail Grace,
Sean Misko, and IG Atkinson is more than suspicious. It reeks of yet another episode of a Deep
State coordinated coup attempt.
The whole impeachment affair is a brazen sequel to the Russia Hoax involving many of the
same key players. Susan Rice, John Brennan, Adam Schiff. Designed to target, destroy, and in
this case, fabricate grounds for the impeachment of the President.
The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the
Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not
only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid
mouthpieces for the Deep State.
Paul Sperry and Real Clear Investigations
The most comprehensive expose on Ciaramella, that has forced even the mainstream media to
take notice, was the Real Clear Investigations reporting of Paul Sperry. Only Sperry, the
Federalist, and CDN have exposed the whistleblowers' identity. But his name and transparent
partisan actions are the worst kept secret in Washington.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has said:
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is."
Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United
States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017,
"If you take on the intelligence community, they have nines ways to Sunday of getting back
at you."
The never-ending coup attempt against Trump
The reality is that Trump was targeted by the Obama White House well before he was
President. The ongoing coup against him started as soon as he was elected. It morphed into the
Mueller Weissman inquisition and the Peter Strzok insurance policy.
When that fizzled into oblivion it was time for plan B, or in this case plan C or D. The
Deep State and their paid minions in the left-wing press have been unrelenting in their ongoing
anti-constitutional putsch against the President.
The impeachment farce, with its calculated rollout reminiscent of the Kavanaugh smear
campaign, is yet another extension of a never-ending East German Stassi coup (sic) attempt
against the constitution, the Republic, and the people of the United States.
Sperry lays out the trail of evidence against Ciaramella
Paul Sperry's excellent investigative reporting makes clear that Ciaramella "previously
worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. (He) left his
National Security Council posting in the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns
about negative leaks to the media." As Sperry reports, "He was accused of working against Trump
and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC official.
Sperry reports that "a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research
dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill". The
dossier documents Ciaramella's bias against Trump. His relationships with Brennan, Rice, the
Obama White House, and DNC operative Chalupa. As well as his coordination with Vindman, Schiff
and his committee staff.
Chuck Schumer: "Eight ways to Sunday of getting back at you"
It questions both Ciaramella's and Vindman's veracity as a legitimate whistleblower. It
makes clear that Ciaramella and his co-conspirators are part of a Deep State coup attempt. A
calculated, coordinated, illegal, seditious, and illegitimate putsch.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz makes clear, " They're hiding him ." Fleitz was emphatic,
" They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days
after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls
for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'"
How IC Inspector General Atkinson found the whistleblower complaint "credible" and "urgent"
at the same time he was backdating the change in regulations to allow the complaint to be filed
is more than highly suspicious. How the 'whistleblower" coordinated with Schiff, Grace, Misko,
and Atkinson to stager the start of impeachment farce is criminal.
Adam Schiff: Constantly lying while moving the goalposts
... ... ...
Schiff: Outstanding scoundrel in a cesspit filled to the brim with similar criminals.
Now Eric Ciaramella is apparently backing away from testifying. Schiff says he no longer
needs his testimony. But Ciaramella should be subpoenaed and called to testify before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He should not be allowed to escape accountability for his role in
this calculated charade of a conspiracy.
He would then have to testify to his coordination with Schiff and the committee staff. He
would have to expose how Vindmann leaked national security information illegally. How the
entire 'whistleblower" farce was a calculated effort to again derail the Trump Presidency.
A lot has come out about Eric Ciaramella, the Adam Schiff 'Whistleblower", in recent days.
It is the tip of the iceberg. Any legitimate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the
entire Ukraine affair will reveal the extensive criminality of the Obama White House and the
coup plotters.
Exposing the dark underbelly of the Obama White House
It stretches back to the Steele Dossier and the clear efforts of the DNC and the Deep State
to use to a foreign power to interfere in the 2016 election. He exposes the corruption of Vice
President Biden to enrich his family at the expense of the American taxpayer. Details the $6
million dollar bribery scheme of Hunter and Joe Biden by Burisma Holdings.
Lays out the corrupt dealings of Ambassador Yovanovich.
It will lay open the devious underbelly of all the so-called hero witnesses of the Schiff
impeachment Star Chamber inquisition. Of the criminal actions of the coup plotters. Of
Ambassador Yovanovich, Ambassador Taylor, Alexandra Chalupa, and Alexander Vindman.
As well as the so-called whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.
Calling the Fourth Estate back
It is the tip of the iceberg that only a truly free and independent press will have to
take the reins to fearlessly expose. Like brilliant investigative reporter Paul Sperry at
Real Clear Investigations. Like the Federalist, NOQ Report, and here at CommDigiNews, who
broke the Ciaramella story a full two days before Real Clear Investigations.
No one else in the corrupt media establishment seems willing to rise to the challenge.
If you've not heard the story, Zlochevsky is alleged to have been doing other people's
laundry. About 7.5 billion dollars worth – a sum that has attracted some attention. And
not just because Ukraine claims Hunter Biden's attachment to Burisma resulted in a take if 16.5
million. Money that has nothing to do with his complete lack of knowledge about energy or gas
but probably relates in some predictable way to the name 'Biden.' The investment firm doing the
laundry has close ties to Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Perhaps a few
members of the US State Department. And maybe a George Soros funded operation "fighting
corruption."
We've seen that Vindman has close ties to the previous Ukrainian government, dating back
to Yanukovych and his successor Petro Poroshenko, while this alleged money-laundering scheme
was taking place. The connection to the Franklin Templeton Fund is interesting because John
Templeton, Jr. was a major Obama campaign donor, and Thomas Donilon, who was Obama's National
Security Advisor before Susan Rice and is now the chairman of BlackRock
Investment Institute , a major owner of Franklin Templeton stock.
Vindman is a holdover from the Bamster years, embedded at the NSC.
He served as National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama. In that capacity Mr.
Donilon oversaw the U.S. National Security Council staff, chaired the cabinet level National
Security Principals Committee, provided the president's daily national security briefing, and
was responsible for the coordination and integration of the administration's foreign policy,
intelligence, and military efforts. Mr. Donilon also oversaw the White House's cybersecurity
and international energy efforts. Mr. Donilon served as the President's personal emissary to
a number of world leaders.
Not a casual acquaintance but watch Obama distance himself from him now. "Who? O
I..uh-hardly knew him!"
Under the Obama Administration, former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovich, like Biden,
like the Soros funded group working with the State Department, were all supposed to be focused
on fighting corruption. There's that word again. I don't think it means what they think it
means.
But while all this corruption-fighting was underway Joe's kid Hunter gets a sweetheart
payoff from Burisma. Joe (who is in charge of Ukraine) gets close to a million for himself. All
while 7.5 Billion is alleged to have been laundered through a "fund" whose primary players are
a major Obama donor and the President's "personal emissary" (under the watchful anti-corruption
eye of a group funded by perhaps the biggest Democrat donor in history, George Soros).
During this series of events, Ukraine got leveraged by the Obama Administration to fire a
prosecutor in exchange for a billion in US aid, probably because that prosecutor was getting
too close to what we are learning today.
Somebody was engaged in a record number of quid pro quos, and no one is named Trump.
...
... ... Steve
MacDonaldis a New Hampshire resident, blogger, and activist. A member of the 603
Alliance, NHCMP, NHRVC, LFGC, and the host of GrokTALK! Please Note: My opinions are my own and
not those of my Family, employers, politicians, campaigns, or other contributors or commenters
at GraniteGrok
"... Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by whom. ..."
"... The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds during the last three years. ..."
"... And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president. ..."
"... I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. ..."
"... The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats' strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is squarely over the target. ..."
"... Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones. ..."
The conspiracy theory that exposes the Democrats' desperation and panic.
Fri Nov 29, 2019
Oleg Atbashian
133 In the last few days, media talking heads have been saying the word "CrowdStrike" a
lot, defining it as a wild conspiracy theory originating in Moscow. They were joined by Chris
Wallace at Fox News, who informed us that president Trump and his ill-informed fans believe in
a crazy idea that the DNC wasn't hacked by the Russians but by some Ukrainian group named
CrowdStrike that stole the DNC server and brought it to Ukraine , and that it was Ukraine that
meddled in our 2016 election and not Russia.
A crazy idea indeed. Except that neither Trump nor his fans had ever heard of it until the
Democrat-media complex condescendingly informed them that these are their beliefs.
Let's look at the facts:
Fact 1. In 2016 the DNC hired the Ukrainian-owned firm CrowdStrike to analyze their server
and investigate a data breach.
Fact 2. CrowdStrike experts determined that the culprit was Russia.
Fact 3. The FBI never received access to the DNC server, so the Russian connection was never
officially confirmed and continues to be an allegation coming from the DNC and its
Ukrainian-owned contractor.
Fact 4. Absent the official verdict, other theories continue to circulate, including the
possibility that the theft was an inside job by a DNC employee, who simply copied the files to
a USB drive and sent it to WikiLeaks.
None of these facts was ever disputed by anyone. The media largely ignored them except for
the part about the Russian hackers, which boosted their own, now debunked, wild conspiracy
theory that Trump was a Russian agent.
Now that Trump had asked the newly elected Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into
CrowdStrike during that fateful July phone call, the media all at once started telling us that
"CrowdStrike" is a code word for a conspiracy theory so insane that only Trump could believe in
it, which is just more proof of how insane he is.
But if Trump had really said what Mr. Wallace and the media claim, Ukrainians would be the
first to call him on it and the impeachment would've been over by now. Instead, Ukrainians back
Trump every step of the way.
So where did this pretzel-shaped fake news come from, and why is it being peddled
now ?
Note this is a classic case study of propaganda and media manipulation:
Take an idea or a story that you wish to go away and make up an obviously bogus story
with the same names and details as the real one.
Start planting it simultaneously on media channels until the fake story supplants the
real one, while claiming this is what your opponents really believe.
Have various fact-checking outlets debunk your fake story as an absurd conspiracy theory.
Ridicule those who allegedly believe in it. Better yet, have late night comedians do it for
you.
Once your opponent is brought down, mercilessly plant your boot on his face and never let
up.
This mass manipulation technology had been tested and perfected by the Soviet propaganda
machine, both domestically and overseas, where it was successfully deployed by the KGB. The
Kremlin still uses it, although it can no longer afford it on the same grandiose scale. In this
sense, the Democratic think tanks are the true successors of the KGB in deviousness, scope, and
worldwide reach of fake narratives. How they inherited these methods from the KGB is a story
for another day.
For a long time this technology was allowing the Democrats to delegitimize opposition by
convincing large numbers of Americans that Republicans are
Haters
Racists
Fascists
Deniers of science
Destroyers of the environment
Heartless sellouts to corporate interests
And so on - the list is endless.
The Soviet communists had aptly named it "disinformation," which a cut above the English
word "misinformation." It includes a variety of methods for a variety of needs, from bringing
down an opponent to revising history to creating a new historical reality altogether. In this
sense, most Hollywood movies on historical subjects today disinform us about history,
supplanting it with a bogus "progressive" narrative. The Soviet term for such art was
"socialist realism."
Long story short, the Democrat-media complex has successfully convinced one half of the
world that Trump is a Russian agent. Now they're acting as if they'd spent the last three years
in a coma, unaware of any bombshell stories about collusion. And bombshell stories without any
continuation are a telltale sign of fake narratives. The only consequence of these bombshells
is mass amnesia among the foot soldiers.
The Trump-Russian outrage is dead, long live the Trump-Ukraine outrage. And when that
outrage is dead, the next outrage that will be just outrageous.
The current impeachment narrative alleges that Trump used military aid as leverage in asking
Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (which implies the Democrats know Biden is dirty, otherwise
why bother?). What's not in this picture is CrowdStrike. Even though Trump mentioned it in the
phone call, it has nothing to do with the Bidens nor the Javelin missiles. CrowdStrike has
nothing to do with impeachment. We're told it's just a silly conspiracy theory in Trump's head,
that it's a nonissue.
But then why fabricate fake news about it and plant blatant lies simultaneously in all media
outlets from Mother Jones to Fox News? Why risk being exposed over such a nonissue? Perhaps
because it's more important than the story suggests.
Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC
server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can
be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist
in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and
other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by
whom.
The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to
understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch
hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds
during the last three years.
And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and
finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this
happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all
the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president.
This gives the supposedly innocuous reference to CrowdStrike during Trump's call a lot more
gravity and the previously incoherent part of the transcript begins to make sense.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your
wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went
on, the whole situation.
If you read the transcript on the day it was released, you probably didn't understand what
Trump was even talking about, let alone what had caused such a disproportionate outrage,
complete with whistle blowing and calls for impeachment. What in that mild conversation could
possibly terrify the Democrats so much? They were terrified because, unlike most Americans, the
Democrats knew exactly what Trump was talking about. And now you know, too.
The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats'
strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is
squarely over the target.
It also helps us to see who at Fox News can be trusted to tell us the truth. And it ain't
Chris Wallace.
Fine dissection of the CrowdStrike story. Of course if the DNC was serious about
finding out who breached their security they would have allowed the FBI to investigate.
They didn't - which means they're covering something up.
And who doesn't have at least one backup system running constantly, I have two and am
just a home user and the DNC would not have been dumb enough not to have one on the
premises and one off site for safety and preservation and the FBI could have gotten to
either one if they wanted to. DWS was involved in something very similar and the FBI
backed off again. I thought the DNC and the FBI were on the same page and would have
liked to find out how the "transfer" happened?
Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had
hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece
against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones.
Seth Rich - paper trail to Wikilinks needs to come out in any Senate impeachment trail
since Democrats claim the Ukraine phone call was Trump's alleged downfall. CROWDSTRIKE
was the only favor Trumps asked for.
There are two important facts to glean from this article:
1) Crowdstrike, the DNC contractor, is Ukrainian
2) that the famous server may have been backed up in Ukraine and not tampered with.
From the MSM we were given the 'interpretation' that Trump is an idiot who believes
that the DNC shipped the server with no changes to the Ukraine. No folks. He 'gets'
technology and security. He actual ran a business! (imagine).
I'd love to hear that in Hillary's own voice. :) You know, cleaned with a cloth?
That pretty much sums it up. MSM in total cahoots on this too since they put the
entire topic of the CROWDSTRIKE part of the phone call into the cone of silence.
The Left and media (One and the same within the "Deep State") have been playing "Three
Card Monte" with America for a while; it stops now!
The "Impeachment" media show being run by the Lefty tool cretins in the House has
NOTHING to do with wrong doing by President Trump. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fear
that President Trump will expose the depth of the swamp and bring the criminals on the
Left down to Justice!
We are s close to getting to the bottom of the conspiracies that threaten our nation.
Time to make the America haters pay for the harm they have done to our nation!
We need open and in depth prosecution of the criminal activities of the Left. There
needs to be LONG prison sentences and, yes, even executions for those that seek to
undermine our nation.
People need to know that there our GRAVE penalties for betraying our nation!
In fact, when I first heard this story - that is: very recently - I was puzzled: why
should a major party in the Country that invented IT and is still at its leading edge,
ask an obscure firm of a crumbling, remote foreign State to do their IT security
research? I'm not saying that Ukraine is a s++thole Country, but... you get me.
Either they have very much to hide, or they fear some closeted rightwing geek that works
in any of the many leftist US technofirms. Or, CrowdStrike were involved from the
beginning of the story, from the Steele dossier perhaps?
The whole Crowdstrike fiasco has been around for years - plus became a solid CYA part
of the Mueller report too - just in case the Democrats needed to bury it later.
don't you get it? The DNC is completely infiltrated by Ukrainian graft. Even Joe Biden
was on the take. Why won't they run their IT? (there is no Research in IT here, just
office software)
If you want to sell and deliver State Secrets and Intel to our enemies, then you
(Obama, the Clintons, the DNC) simply make it easier for THEM to access. They have done
this for years, and this is why they had to fill the DOJ, the FBI and the State
Department with traitors and haters of America and American principles. Barack Hussein
Obama, the Clintons, their evil administrations and even two-faced RINOS like McCain,
Romney, and Jeff Sessions were actively involved. This is treason pure and simple, and
all of the above could be legitimately and justifiably hung or shot without recourse, and
rightly so!
I have known about "Crowdstrike" since Dec. 2017. Pres. Trump is just subtlety
introducing background on what will be the biggest story of treachery, subversion,
treason and corruption ever. QAnon that the fakenews tries to vilify as a LARP has been
dropping crumbs about "Crowdstrike", Perkins Coir, Fusion GPS, FVEY and so much more!
Crowdstrike mentioned 7x in the last 2 years. I can't urge people enough to actually
investigate the Q posts for themselves! You will be stunned at what you have been
missing. Q which says "future proves past" and "news will unlock" what I see in the media
now is old news to those of us following Q. Q told us that "Senate was the prize" "Senate
meant more" that the investigations started in the House would now move to the Senate and
all this that the Dems and Rinos have been trying to hide is going to be exposed.
Fakenews corporate media has litterally written hundreds of hit pieces against Q - me
knows "they doth protest to much" - Recent Q post told "Chairman Graham its time. Senate
was the target"
Keep up with the Q posts and Pres. Trump's tweets in once place:
https://qmap.pub/ - And if you are still having a hard time believing this is legit
Pres. Trump himself has confirmed Q posts by "Zero Delta" drops - if you think this is
fake - try and tweet within 1 minute of when Pres. Trump does BUT your tweet has to
anticipate his! YOU have to tweet first and HE has to follow you within 1 minute.
MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY UNLESS you are in the same immediate space or communicating at
the time of the tweets! To all you doubters that think Q is just a by chance scam - NO
WAY. There have been MANY, MANY of these ZERO DELTA PROOFS over the last 2 years. The
most recent was Nov. 20th.
Crowdstrike in the dog who did not bark. The Democrat cone of silence they put on even
the mention of the word has been the most damning clue this is where the real action
is.
The assertion that a digital image of the computer can be transmitted quickly all
around the world is not necessarily correct in my experience as a cyber security analyst.
I'm not an upper echelon type, but I am aware that it can take up to weeks to transmit
such images depending on the hard disk, where it is, and the connections/network to your
device creating the image. The FBI should have physically taken the device since there
was a suspicion of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton. Had it been Donald Trump's computer I
do not doubt the FBI would either have imaged it on the spot or taken the device.
Last night I completely removed Catalina-Safari on my older Mac Book Air and
re-installed Mohave-Safari from my backup to the day before I installed Catalina
including the data and system just like it was before. It took around 5 hours and was
cabled and not on Wi-Fi and it was perfect and reset the clock, my old e-mails and the
newer ones as well. I can't believe being hooked into real broadband or fiber couldn't do
the same in a relatively short period of time, but still significantly longer than a
thumb drive or external hard drive.
One variable is how big your hard drive is. If it is a big drive at a remote location,
say somewhere in California to the Midwest, it can take weeks for a forensic backup. I
only say that because . . . well, I'm not allowed to say. But you get it.
The assertion is a figure of speech. Today's IT infrastructure companies sell the
service of maintaining clones in real-time in two or more locations for safety purposes.
VMware and other off-the-shelf products makes this kind of setup easy to deploy. Did
Crowdstrike offer that service and did the DNC buy it, that is the question? And, if so,
did Crowdstrike keep the image on their backups in Ukraine?
(Note: it is not obvious that such a setup would preserve the forensic data the FBI would
be looking for, but its a start).
4. Would Trump benefit from investigations in Ukraine and Burisma? Would he benefit any
more then the DNC would benefit with Russia?
Yes, Trump would benefit from investigations into Ukraine and Burisma. Does that mean that
it's not the right thing for the country? No. The truth is important no matter which side it
hurts in the next election. The left should be just as interested in learning the facts about
what had happened in Ukraine as they are trying to make it seem like they are with the Russia
investigations. Would it benefit him more then it would benefit the DNC though, then it does
with the Democrats investigating Russia? No. Unlike the Democrats, Trump doesn't have a
majority of the media on his side. A media who tries to spin absolutely every little rumor into
a major crisis, that they are sure will take down the President this time.
The left is quick to dismiss any talk of Ukraine just like the right is quick to dismiss any
talk of Russia. If either, or both, are true, it is a very severe threat to our Republic and
needs to be dealt with.
5. Which is more in line with America's national interest?
a) Withhold U.S. aid money ($400 billion) until recipient investigates: What happened to $7
billion in U.S aid? Was there any collusion to influence the U.S. election, government
corruption involving the State Department, U.S. intelligence, NGO's, U.S. candidates, etc.
OR
b) A President or Vice President withholding U.S. aid ($1 billion) unless recipient STOPS
investigations.
The answer to this question is really easy. We should absolutely investigate where the $7
billion went. We need to figure out if there was any influence in the US election. We should
investigate Vice President Joe Biden calling for the ambassador to be fired.
We know for a fact that there was collusion between the DNC and the Ukraine embassy in D.C.,
so why is it that nobody cares about that collusion? Why is it a big deal that Trump supposedly
withheld aid from Ukraine until they investigated Joe Biden, but no one seems to have a problem
with Joe Biden withholding aid to force Ukraine to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor so that an
investigation would be stopped? That wasn't an impeachable offense, but Donald Trump's phone
call with the Ukrainian President was? What has Trump done that is any worse then anything the
Obama administration did?
These 5 questions should be questions that both sides should be able to come together on but
sadly both sides are more concerned with party politics, more then they are concerned about the
security of our republic. Claiming that Russia is a treat doesn't automatically mean that you
believe Trump is an illegitimate President and that he colluded with Russia. Claiming that
Ukraine needs to be investigated doesn't mean that you are excusing anything that Donald Trump
has done. It simply means that you are more concerned with the national security of our country
then you are with party politics.
Chalupa reportedly
acknowledged in her 2017 interview with Politico that she worked as a consultant for the
DNC during the 2016 campaign with the goal of publicly exposing Trump campaign aide
Paul Manafort 's
links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Chalupa admitted coordinating with the Ukrainian
Embassy, and with Ukrainian and U.S. news reporters.
I won't sit here and claim that what I've heard over the last 2 days with family in town,
is at all representative of all Americans but it was interesting. I have all kinds of
political affiliation in the family: Maga's, Dims and Independents. All are TIRED of both
sides antics. No one wanted to discuss it except to say that we are ALL fucked in one way or
another. What was lively political debate before was met with a lack of discussion and
instead a pervasive frustration and sadness about the system itself how corrupt it all is but
not knowing what to do about it.
I just wonder if that's how many Americans feel about all this. At least those sick of all
of it.
Most of us are aware of that. It doesn't mean that he isn't right about some things
though, and he's incredibly amusing at times. If there is ever a non zionist candidate, I'd
happily vote for them. At least he's not a west hating bolshevik golem.
As is everyone else in washington. Ron, Rand, and Tulsi, not given a chance. Obama was
probably the least zionist president we've had in decades, and he still went along with most
of their goals, along with being a fabian socialist.
Please wake up soon. Your savior is running $1 trillion annual deficits, has raised the
troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8500-14,000, will not leave Syria, bombed Syria twice with
zero evidence of gas attacks because there were none. Anybody who thinks there's a dime's
worth of difference between the parties comatose, please wake up soon.
"... The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August 2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate evidence to assign blame to Syria. ..."
Manufacturing a pretext for the U.S.
missile strike on Syria in April 2018 is nowhere near the biggest of OPCW's crimes. The
OPCW is an accessory , both before and after the fact to the crime of
mass murder.
It should now be clear to everyone that Syrian "rebels" gassed thousands of hostages in
cellars, most likely with chlorine gas, and then paraded the victims in White Helmets
snuff videos. OPCW conspired in this crime in both encouraging the terrorists to more murder
and by protecting them afterward by assigning blame to Assad and the Syrian government.
The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August
2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their
pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate
evidence to assign blame to Syria.
We have been documenting
these crimes and hoaxes at A Closer Look On Syria from December 2012. OPCW was used
from the beginning to manufacture consent for war. See for example:
Of course, the OPCW is already there! I highly suggest Caitlin Johnstone's article b
linked be read, which can be
found here .
We should expand on Petri's number of people involved in this crime to include all the
paid disinformation artists noted in Caitlin's essay at minimum. What becomes very clear in
all this is the total collusion with OPCW upper level management--those whom the
whistleblowers and their allies within OPCW petitioned--in these crimes as Petri contends.
Until they are visibly replaced, nothing issued by OPCW has any credence.
OPCW has shown to be a pure political entity, used at will by few regimes in the UN to
promote their agenda, b has done a tremendous job to humanity to bring the truth to the
public worldwide. Syrians have paid the price for UN leaders support to global terrorism for
too long. It must stop now.
"... "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."- Joseph Goebbels ..."
At yesterday's Thanksgiving table, fifteen adults present, there was not one word uttered
about impeachment, Russia, Ukraine, and, most notably, a certain Golden Golem of Greatness,
whose arrival at the center of American life three years ago kicked off a political hysteria
not witnessed across this land since southern "fire eaters" lay siege to Fort Sumter.
I wonder if some great fatigue of the mind has set in among the class of people who follow
the news and especially the tortured antics of Rep. Adam Schiff's goat rodeo in the House intel
Committee the past month. I wonder what the rest of congress is detecting among its
constituents back home during this holiday hiatus. I suspect it is that same eerie absence of
chatter I noticed, and what it may portend about the nation's disposition toward reality.
The dead white man Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) famously observed that "all truth
passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and
third, it is accepted as self-evident."
America has been stuck in stage two lo these thirty-six months since Mr. Trump shocked the
system with his electoral victory over She-Whose-Turn-Was-Undoubted, inciting a paroxysm of
rage, disbelief, and retribution that has made the Left side of the political transect
ridiculous, and repeatedly, ignominiously so, as their fantasies about Russian "collusion" and
sequential chimeras dissolve in official proceedings.
The astounding failure of Mr. Mueller's report did nothing to dampen the violent
derangement. There was no rethinking whatsoever about the terms-of-engagement in the Left's war
against the populist hobgoblin. The solidarity of delusion remained locked in place, leading to
Mr. Schiff's recent antics over his false "whistleblower" and the enfilade of diplomatic
flak-catchers tasked to ward off any truthful inquiry into events in Ukraine.
But then, with the Thanksgiving shut-down, something began to turn. It was signaled
especially in the Left's chief disinformation organ, The New York Times , with a week-long
salvo of lame stories aimed at defusing the Horowitz report, forthcoming on December 9. The
Times stories were surely based on leaks from individuals cited in the IG's report, who were
given the opportunity to "review" the briefs against them prior to the coming release. The
stories gave off an odor of panic and desperation that signaled a crumbling loss of conviction
in the three-year narrative assault on the truth -- namely, that the US Intel Community
organized a coup to overthrow the improbable President Trump.
From this point forward, the facts of the actual story -- many of them already in the public
record, one way or another, and sedulously ignored by the news media -- will be officially
detailed by federal authorities outside the orbit of the coupsters, and finally beyond the
coupsters' control. The facts may include the uncomfortable truth that Mr. Mueller and his
helpers were major players in the bad-faith exercises of the Intel Community against the
occupant of the White House.
I'm not so sure that the Resistance can keep up the fight,
since their enemy is reality as much as reality's mere personification in Mr. Trump. The
violent opposition Schopenhauer spoke of in his three-stage model was just procedural in this
case, moving through the courts and committees and other organs of the state. I don't think the
Left can bring the fight to the streets. They don't have it in them, not even the ANTIFA corps.
The hard truths of perfidy and treachery in the upper ranks of government will rain down in the
weeks ahead, and when they do, there's an excellent chance that they will be greeted as
self-evident. The Times , the WashPo and the cable news networks will have no choice but to
report it all. My guess is that they will display a kind of breathlessly naïve wonder that
such things are so. Most remarkably, they might just assert that they knew it all along -- a
final twitch of bad faith as the new paradigm locks into place.
I expect that we will see something else happen along with that: a loud repudiation of the
Democratic Party itself, a recognition that it betrayed the mental health of the nation in its
lawless and demented inquisitions . I expect that sentiment will extend to the party's current
crop of candidates for the White House, to the delusional proposals they push, and perhaps even
to the larger ethos of the Wokester religion that has programmatically tried to destroy the
common culture of this country -- especially the idea that we have a duty to be on the side of
truth.
And then there is the Magnitsky Act, Behind the Scenes one showing in the US then banned in all Western countries. Two minute trailer
https://vimeo.com/286527081
I've never wanted to be wrong more in my life, but this IG report and the "investigation"
by Barr et al isn't going to "find" $hit. 99% of their time, effort, and energy has been
focused on what they absolutely have to report and destroying evidence they can get away
with. No big name, evil MFers will be touched by this. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not.
You are correct and the contempt they are going to face will render all of them
meaningless for the rest of their lives. If in doubt, ask Romney; if he gave someone
directions to a doughnut shop they would assume it was a lie.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."- Joseph Goebbels
The Horowitz report on 12-19-19. CNN has already front run the report and reveled a
nothing little fatty that will be blamed for the FISA abuse. There will be no bomb shells
that the mainstream media can't obfuscate. The county is divided and facts no longer matter.
The good news is the right is too polite to fight in the streets and the left are such
pussies nobody can really be afraid of them.
Democrats live in a lie. They live in a completely made up propaganda-supported la-la
land, and they get angry when the rest of the world recognizes those lies.
"... However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible.'" ..."
"... Within days the details of these calls were leaked to the media , resulting in a series of unflattering articles being published by the mainstream media. While no direct evidence has emerged about who was responsible for leaking these calls, NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time suspected the whistleblower. (One of the byproducts of this incident was the decision by NSC lawyers to move the records of Presidential phone calls to a more secure server , significantly limiting access by NSC staff.) ..."
"... When Hill arrived in April 2017 to assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found himself without a job. ..."
"... The "whistleblower" was CIA and it seems 'he' just seized this transgression as the main chance for the security state to finally get rid of Trump, just as they have tried since his campaign statements for restoring detente with Russia. As Scott Ritter points out, careers have been made on the New Cold War. ..."
"... The purpose of "intelligence" is to enhance/preserve specific political relationships of the entity/entities for whom activities which are defined/framed as "intelligence" are undertaken, and hence "intelligence" is always "politicised" since it is a component of politics a.k.a. interactions defined/framed by the "initiators" implemented in interaction. ..."
"... Scott seems convinced that the NSC serves the administration, although it surrounds and outnumbers them, controls the information and narratives available to them, is controlled by secret tribes of the secret agencies, and acts against them everywhere when it disagrees. The administration are mere figureheads in a government by secret agencies lost in their own self-serving narratives. Any contrary administration would have to move in a shadow government by force right after election, and abolish the NSC. Not that it could get elected. ..."
"... It works the same in every country, whether monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, socialist, communist or various blends with democracy. Once you set up an unaccountable secret police or intelligence agency and empower it to spy on people, carry out various deceptions and allow it to operate outside the law, it becomes the real power, blackmailing and even murdering according to its own direction. ..."
"... I believe Scott is right on target with his presented material. We still don't know what happened with the JFK murder but we do know that CIA knew something big was up. So JFK get murdered and CIA prevents a thorough exacting investigation. I see CIA interference as being political. What else would it be be. CIA escaped any blame at the time and the president was gone and replace. Political. ..."
"... In this day and age CIA can't afford getting caught with gunpowder residue anywhere on it entity if a sitting president happens to catch a round or two. The alternative is to use all that money the Super Wealthy Elites have stashed and go openly political. Hiding in plan sight as always. ..."
"... The bottom line here is that a deputy national intelligence officer charged with overseeing intelligence activities regarding the Russian-Ukraine target used his position to initiate a Whistleblower complaint which failed to conform to the legal requirements required of such. ..."
"... A huge problem is that most US bureaucrats have never lived abroad and gone thru culture shock. They are so rigidly American they do not understand foreign cultures ..."
"... the MSM is spiking any negative Biden stories. Biden seems to be the CIA's preferred Democrat. ..."
"... Evidently he was so pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia (pointed out by Mike Cernovich who suggested he was involved in leaks, as noted in Foreign Policy back in 2017), that it must have been difficult for him to fall in line and do his required job, implementing new foreign policy with a new administration. Whether he "went native" or truly decided to over-ride the President's policies in favor of the old Obama "consensus community" policies for Ukraine, he has crossed several lines interfering with foreign policy and national security. ..."
"... This case is classical sedition. If the CIA wants to run the country, they should run for office (as several did and won as Democrats in 2018). ..."
"... The West's blanket condemnation of Russia and its so-called annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 would suggest that more of us need to educate ourselves on the history of Russia and Crimea in particular before we whole heartedly swallow the narrative that our political leaders and media foist on us. ..."
"... "After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed." When the whistleblower refused to accept this decision, and instead took his complaint to Schiff, as a politicized weapon, he and anyone else involved should have been or now be charged with Sedition. (Obama would have thrown the whistleblower's butt in jail as he did so many others.) ..."
"... Stephen Cohen has emphasized the essential ability of elected Presidents to meet in private with foreign leaders, as every President since Kennedy has done (saving us from nuclear destruction in JFK's case and leading to the fall of the Soviet Union in Reagan's). That's where important deals are concluded and military, intelligence, and state members whose jobs depend on warmongering advantages, cannot and should not be allowed access to sensitive national security decisions. ..."
"... "The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country and its politics since 2016 ." ..."
"... If one truly studies such things -- seriously -- objectively -- that date will be determined to be November 22, 1963. ..."
SCOTT RITTER: The 'Whistleblower' and the Politicization of Intelligence November 27,
2019 •
52 Comments
The whistleblower complaint has opened a window into the politicization of the intelligence
community, and the corresponding weaponization of the national security establishment, argues
Scott Ritter.
Special to Consortium News
The whistleblower. A figure of great controversy, whose actions, manifested in an
11-page
report submitted to the Intelligence
Community Inspector General (ICIG) on August 12 alleging wrongdoing on the part of the
president of the United States, jump-started an ongoing impeachment process targeting Donald
Trump that has divided the American body politic as no other issue in contemporary time.
His identity has been cloaked in a shroud of anonymity which has proven farcical, given that
his name is common knowledge throughout the Washington-based national security establishment in
whose ranks he continues to serve. While Trump
publicly calls for the identity of the whistleblower
to be revealed , the mainstream media has played along with the charade of confidentiality,
and Congress continues to pretend his persona is a legitimate national security secret, even as
several
on-line publications have printed it , along with an extensive document trail sufficient to
corroborate that the named man is, in fact, the elusive whistleblower.
There is no legitimate reason for the whistleblower's identity to remain a secret. The
Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff , (D-CA) has cited statutory protections that
simply do not exist while using his authority as chairman to prohibit any probe by his
Republican colleagues designed to elicit information about the whistleblower's identity. "The
whistleblower has a right, a statutory right, to anonymity," Schiff recently opined during
recent impeachment-related testimony. And yet The Washington Post, no friend of Trump,
was compelled to assign Schiff's statement
three "Pinocchios" , out of a scale of four, in rejecting the claim as baseless.
The myth of statutory protection for the whistleblower's identity has been aggressively
pursued by his legal counsel, Andrew Bakaj , the managing partner of the Compass
Rose Legal Group, which has taken on the whistleblower's case pro bono.
In a letter to the president's legal counsel, Pat Cippolone, Bakaj demanded that Trump
"cease and desist in calling for my client's identity", claiming that the president's actions,
undertaken via Twitter and in press briefings, constituted violations of federal statutes
prohibiting, among other things, tampering with a witness, obstruction of proceedings, and
retaliating against as witness.
All of Bakaj's claims are contingent upon the viability of the whistleblower's status as a
legitimate witness whose testimony can, therefore, be tampered, obstructed or retaliated
against. The legal foundation of the whistleblower's claims are based upon the so-called
Intelligence Community whistleblower statute , 50 USC § 3033(k)(5), which
stipulates the processes required to report and sustain an allegation of so-called "urgent
concern" to the U.S. intelligence community. An "urgent concern" is defined, in relevant part,
as: "A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or
deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity
within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving
classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy
matters."
The Call
At issue was a telephone call made between President Trump and the newly elected President
of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky , on July 25
of this year. According to the whistleblower's report to the ICIG, "Multiple White House
officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of
pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests."
President Trump, the whistleblower alleged, "sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take
actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid," an act which the whistleblower claimed
presidential abuse of his office "for personal gain."
Upon review of the whistleblower's report, which consisted of a nine-page unclassified
letter and a separate two-page classified annex, Michael K. Atkinson, the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community, initiated an investigation of the complaint as required by the
whistleblower statute. This investigation must be completed within a 14-day period mandated by
the statute, during which time the ICIG "shall determine whether the complaint or information
appears credible."
While the statute is silent on the methodology to be used by the ICIG in making this
determination, Atkinson
had testified during his Senate confirmation hearing that, when it came to any
investigation of a whistleblower complaint, "I will work to ensure that ICIG personnel conduct
investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews in accordance with Quality Standards
promulgated by CIGIE (Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency) to keep
those activities free from personal, external, and organizational impairments." The CIGIE
standard in question requires that, "Evidence must be gathered and reported in an unbiased
and independent manner in an effort to determine the validity of an allegation or to resolve an
issue."
In a
letter transmitting the whistleblower
complaint to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Atkinson stated that he had
"determined that the Complainant (i.e., whistleblower) had official and authorized access to
the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix,
including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject
matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant's
Letter and Classified Appendix."
However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the
second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25
Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records
of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was
not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern
'appears credible.'"
Atkinson declared that "it would be highly unlikely for the ICIG to obtain those records
within the limited remaining time allowed by statute," and opted to perform an investigation in
violation of the very CIGIE standard he had promise to adhere to in his Senate testimony. In
short, no evidence was gathered by the ICIG to determine the validity of the whistleblower's
allegation, and yet Atkinson decided to forward the complaint to the DNI, certifying it as
"credible."
The whistleblower statute allows the DNI seven days to review the complaint before
forwarding it to the House Committee on Intelligence, with comments if deemed appropriate.
However, in reviewing the actual complaint, Joseph McGuire, the acting DNI who took over from
Dan Coats, who was fired by President Trump in early August, had questions about whether or not
the matters it alleged fell within the remit of the whistleblower statute, and rather than
forwarding it to the House Intelligence Committee, instead sent it to the Justice Department
Office of Legal Counsel for legal review.
The Office of Legal Council, on September 3, issued a legal opinion
rejecting the ICIG's certification of the whistleblower complaint as constituting an "urgent
concern" under the law. "The complaint," the opinion read,
"does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence
activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence
community. Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication
between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant
received secondhand. The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory
definition of 'urgent concern' that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence
committees. We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an 'urgent concern'
within the meaning of the statute."
DOJ Rejected Complaint as Urgent
As related in the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion, the Justice Department did, however,
refer the matter to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice for appropriate review.
After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division
opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed.
Under normal circumstances, this would have concluded the matter of Trump's phone call with
Zelensky, and the second-hand concerns unnamed White House officials had reported to the
whistleblower. But this was not a normal circumstance. Far from diffusing an improperly
predicated complaint, the failure of the acting DNI to forward the whistleblower complaint to
the House Intelligence Committee, and the concurrent legal opinion of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel rejecting the "urgent concern" certification of the ICIG, opened the
door for the whistleblower, through legal counsel, to reach out to the House Intelligence
Committee directly.
The whistleblower followed procedures set forth in the whistleblower statute detailing
procedures for a complaint, which had not been certified as an "urgent concern," to be
forwarded to Congress. The issue is that the matter was being treated by the ICIG, Congress and
the whistleblower's attorney's as an "urgent concern", a status that it did not legally qualify
for.
On September 24, Bakaj sent a "
Notice of Intent to Contact Congressional Intelligence Committees" to acting DNI McGuire
providing "formal notice of our intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees
directly" on behalf of the whistleblower, identified only as "a member of the Intelligence
Community." Almost immediately, Schiff announced via Twitter that
"We have been informed by the whistleblower's counsel that their client would like to speak to
our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so. We're in touch
with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's testimony as soon as this week."
Andrew Bakaj, whistleblower attorney. (Twitter)
Thus was set in motion events which would culminate in impeachment proceedings against
President Trump. On the surface, the events described represent a prima facia case for the
efficacy of statutory procedures concerning the processing of a whistleblower complaint. But
there were warning signs that all was not right regarding both the whistleblower himself, and
the processes involved leading to the whistleblower's complaint being presented to
Congress.
Political Bias?
Far from an exemplar in bureaucratic efficiency, the whistleblower complaint has opened a
window into the politicization of the intelligence community, and the corresponding
weaponization of the national security establishment, against a sitting president.
As I shall show, such actions are treasonous on their face, and the extent to which this
conduct has permeated the intelligence community and its peripheral functions of government,
including the National Security Council and Congress itself, will only be known if and when an
investigation is conducted into what, in retrospect, is nothing less than a grand conspiracy by
those ostensibly tasked with securing the nation to instead reverse the will of the American
people regarding who serves as the nation's chief executive.
The key to this narrative is the whistleblower himself. Understanding who he is, and what
role he has played in the events surrounding the fateful July 25 telephone conversation, are
essential to unravelling the various threads of this conspiracy.
Much has been made about the political affiliation of the whistleblower, namely the fact
that he is a
registered Democrat who
supports Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential election. On the
surface this information is not dispositive -- the intelligence community is populated by
thousands of professionals of diverse political leanings and affiliations, all of whom have
been trained to check their personal politics at the door when it comes to implementing the
policies promulgated by the duly elected national leadership.
Indeed, Inspector General Atkinson, while acknowledging in his assessment of the
whistleblower's complaint an indication of possible political bias on the part of the
whistleblower in favor of a rival political candidate, noted that "such evidence did not change
my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible'". But
when one reverse engineers the whistleblower's career, it becomes clear that there in fact
existed a nexus between the whistleblower's political advocacy and professional actions that
both influenced and motivated his decision to file the complaint against the president.
A Rising Star
Like most CIA analysts, the whistleblower possessed a keen intellect born of
stringent academic preparation , which in the whistleblower's case included graduating from
Yale University in 2008 with a degree in Russian and East European studies, post-graduate study
at Harvard, and work experience with the World Bank.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a contemporary colleague of the whistleblower, has provided an apt
account for what is expected of a CIA analyst. "The CIA is an intensely apolitical
organization," Kendall-Taylor wrote . "As
intelligence analysts, we are trained to check our politics at the door. Our job is to produce
objective analysis that the country's leaders can use to make difficult decisions. We undergo
rigorous training on how to analyze our own assumptions and overcome biases that might cloud
our judgement."
The training program Kendall-Taylor referred to is known as the Career
Analyst Program (CAP) , a four-month basic training program run out of the CIA's in-house
University, the Sherman Kent
School , which "introduces all new employees to the basic thinking, writing, and briefing
skills needed for a successful career. Segments include analytic tools, counterintelligence
issues, denial and deception analysis, and warning skills."
Andrea Kendall-Taylor (Center for a New American Security)
The
standards to which aspiring analysts such as the whistleblower were trained to meet were
exacting, and included a requirement to be "independent of political considerations," meaning
the product produced should consist of objective assessments "informed by available information
that are not distorted or altered with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular
policy, political viewpoint, or audience." As an analyst, the whistleblower would have chosen a
specific specialization, which in his case was as a " Political Analyst " , charged with
examining "political, social, cultural, and historical information to provide assessments about
foreign political systems and developments."
By the time the whistleblower completed his application process with the CIA, which requires
a detailed background check, several rounds of interviews, and final security and psychological
evaluation before an actual offer of employment can be made, and by the time he finished his
basic analytical training, the U.S. had undergone a political and social revolution of sorts
with the election of Barack Obama as the 44 th president of the United States.
The whistleblower was assigned to the Office of Russian and Eurasian Analysis (OREA), within
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, at a time when U.S.-Russian policy was undergoing a
radical transformation.
Under the guidance of Michael McFaul, President Obama's special advisor on Russia and the
senior director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council, the Obama
administration was seeking to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the election of
Dmitri Medvedev as Russia's president in 2008. Medvedev had succeeded Vladimir Putin, who went
on to serve as prime minister. Medvedev was a more liberal alternative to Putin's autocratic
conservatism, and McFaul envisioned a policy "reset" designed to move relations between the
U.S. and Russia in a more positive trajectory.
As a junior analyst, the whistleblower worked alongside colleagues such as Andrea
Kendall-Taylor, who joined OREA about the same time after graduating from UCLA in 2008 with a
PhD is Slavic and Eurasian studies. A prolific writer, Kendall-Taylor wrote extensively on
autocratic leaders and Putin in particular . Her work was in high demand at both the CIA
and NSC, which under the Obama administration had undergone a massive expansion intended to
better facilitate policy coordination among the various departments that comprised the NSC.
The whistleblower had a front-row seat on the rollercoaster ride that was U.S.-Russian
policy during this time, witnessing the collapse of McFaul's Russian "reset," Putin's return to
power in 2012, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that led to the annexation of Crimea and
Russian support for rebels in the Donbas region.
During his tenure at OREA, the whistleblower obviously impressed his superiors, receiving
several
promotions and, in July 2015, he detailed to the NSC staff at the Obama White House as the
Director for Ukrainian Affairs. According to a former CIA officer, any high-performing analyst
who aspires to be promoted into the ranks of the Senior Intelligence Service must, prior to
that time, do a rotation as part of the overall policy community, which includes the NSC or
another department, such as Defense or State, as well as a tour within another directorate of
the CIA.
NSC positions were originally intended for senior CIA analysts, at the GS-15 level, but
waivers could be made for qualified GS-14 or "very strong" GS-13's (the whistleblower was a
GS-13 at the time of his assignment at the NSC, a reflection of both his qualification and the
regard to which he was held by the CIA.) NSC assignments do not coincide with the political
calendar -- detailees (as career civil servants who are detailed to the NSC are referred) are
expected to serve in their position regardless of what political party controls the White
House. When an opening becomes available (usually when another detailee's assignment has
finished), prospective candidates apply, and are interviewed by their senior management, who
forward qualified candidates to another board for a final decision.
Assignments to the NSC are considered highly sought after, and while the process for
application must be followed, the selection process is highly political, with decisions being
signed off by the director of the CIA. In the case of the whistleblower, his candidacy would
have been approved by both Peter Clement
, the director of OREA, and John Brennan , the CIA director.
Into the Lion's Den
By the time the whistleblower arrived at the NSC, the NSC staff had grown into a well-oiled
policy machine managing the entire spectrum of Obama administration national security
policy-making and implementation. The NSC staff operated in accordance with Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) 1 ,
"Organization of the National Security Council System", which outlined the procedures governing
the management of the development and implementation of national security policies by multiple
agencies of the United States Government.
Brennan briefing Obama May 3, 2010. He approved whistleblower. (Official White House Photo
by Pete Souza)
The vehicle for accomplishing this mission was the NSC Interagency Policy Committee
(NSC/IPC). The NSC/IPCs were the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination of national
security policy. They provided policy analysis for consideration by the more senior committees
of the NSC system and ensured timely responses to decisions made by the president. NSC/IPCs
were established at the direction of the NSC Deputies Committee and were chaired by the
relevant division chief within the NSC staff.
The whistleblowers job was to develop, coordinate and execute plans and policies to manage
the full range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic national security issues for
the countries in his portfolio, which included Ukraine. The whistleblower coordinated with his
interagency partners to produce internal memoranda, talking points and other materials for the
National Security Advisor and senior staff.
The whistleblower reported directly to Charles Kupchan , the Senior Director for
European Affairs on the NSC. Kupchan, a State Department veteran who had previously served on
the NSC staff of President Bill Clinton before turning to academia, in turn reported directly
to Susan Rice, President Obama's national security adviser.
When the whistleblower first arrived at the NSC, he volunteered for the Ukraine portfolio.
Kupchan was impressed by the whistleblower's work ethic and performance, and soon expanded his
portfolio to include the fight against the Islamic State. The whistleblower was aided by
another organizational connection -- his colleague and mentor at OREA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor,
had been selected to serve in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the d
eputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Among Kendall-Taylor's responsibilities was to
closely coordinate with the NSC staff on critical issues pertaining to Russia and Ukraine.
The whistleblower's arrival at the NSC staff also coincided with the start of Trump's
improbable candidacy for the presidency of the United States. As 2015 transitioned into 2016,
and it became apparent that Trump was the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party,
allegations about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia began to circulate within the
interagency. Trump's electoral victory in November 2016 , the shocked the whistleblower, like everyone else on the NSC
staff.
Alarmed By Trump on Russia
The line between policy and politics began to blur, and then disappeared altogether.
National Security Advisor Rice was becoming increasingly alarmed by the activities of the Trump
transition team, especially when it came to issues pertaining to Russia.
According to The Washington Post , "Rice apparently was closely monitoring the
high-profile investigation into Russian interference."
The President-elect had, during the campaign, openly advocated for better relations between
the U.S. and Russia and had even suggested that the Russian annexation of Crimea could
eventually be accepted by the U.S. This stance was anathema to the policies that had been
massaged into place by the NSC in general, and the whistleblower in particular. According to
multiple sources familiar with the whistleblower during this time, his animus against Trump was
palpable.
In December 2016, Rice was involved in the unmasking of the identities of several members of
the Trump transition team. Various sensitive intelligence reports were circulating within the
NSC regarding the interaction of unnamed U.S. citizens with foreign targets of intelligence
interest. In order to better understand the significance of such a report,
Rice has acknowledged that, on several occasions, she requested that the identity of the
U.S. persons involved be "unmasked."
The U.S. intelligence community is prohibited by law from collecting information about U.S.
citizens. As such, when a conversation undertaken by a foreign national of intelligence
interest was captured, and it turned out the person or persons whom the target was speaking to
was a U.S. citizen, the analysts preparing the report for wider dissemination would "mask", or
hide, the identities of the U.S. citizens involved. Under relevant laws governing the
collection of intelligence, up to 20 officials within the Obama administration had the
authority to unmask the identities of U.S. citizens. One of those was Rice.
In late December 2016, the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin
Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York for a meeting with several top Trump transition officials,
including Michael Flynn, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the President-elect's top
strategist Steve Bannon. Intelligence reports had been circulating about the UAE coordinating a
backchannel for the Trump transition team and Russia.
Zayed's arrival, which was unannounced and had not been coordinated with the U.S.
government, caused great concern among the NSC staff especially given the context of
allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016
election.
The principle NSC staffers who would logically been advising Rice on this matter were
Kupchan, the whistleblower, and
Sean Misko , a State Department detailee who served as the director for the Gulf Arab
States (According the NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time, Misko and the
whistleblower were said to be close friends, frequently socializing with one another after
hours, and possessing a common dislike for Trump.)
Rice requested that the intelligence reports pertaining to Zayed's visit be subjected to
unmasking procedures.
While the
subsequent reporting about the three-hour meeting between Zayed and the Trump transition
team failed to uncover any evidence of a secret communications channel with Russia, Rice (who
would logically have been assisted by Kupchan and the whistleblower) facilitated the near
continuous unmasking of intelligence reports involving Flynn, who was in contact with Russian
officials, including Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
The Greatest Sin
Susan Rice, center, with Obama, March 10, 2009. (White House photo)
As a professional intelligence analyst detailed to the NSC, the whistleblower was committed
to a two-year assignment, extendable to three years upon the agreement of all parties.
President Obama's departure from the White House did not change this commitment. According to
NSC staffers who served in the White House at the time, the whistleblower, like many of his
fellow detailees, had grown attached to the policies of the Obama administration which they had
fought hard to formulate, coordinate and implement. They viewed these policies to be
sacrosanct, regardless of who followed in the White House.
In doing so, they had committed the greatest sin that an intelligence professional could
commit short of espionage -- they had become political.
In December 2016, the whistleblower was, based upon his role as a leading Russian analysts
advising Rice directly, more than likely helping unmask Flynn's communications with Russians; a
month later, he was working for Flynn, someone he had likely actively helped conspire against,
using the unfettered power of the intelligence community.
The Trump administration had inherited a national security decision-making apparatus that
was bloated, and which fostered White House micromanagement via the NSC. While the Obama NSC
had proven able to generate a prolificate amount of "policy", it did so by relying on a staff
that had expanded to the largest in the history of the NSC, and at the expense of the various
departments of government that were supposed to be the originators of policy.
As the new national security adviser, Flynn let it be known from day one that there would be
changes. One of his first actions was to hire four new
deputies who centralized much of the responsibilities normally tasked to regional directors
such as the whistleblower. Flynn was putting in place a new level of bureaucracy that shielded
professional detailees from top level decision makers.
Moreover, it recognized that the NSC, while staffed with professionals who are supposed to
be apolitical, was viewed by the White House as a partisan policy body whose work not only
furthered the interests of the United States, but also the political interests of the
president. When Trump included his top political advisor, Bannon, on the list of people who
would comprise the National Security Council (normally limited to cabinet-level officials), it
sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, which accused Trump of
politicizing what they claimed was an apolitical process.
But the reality was that the NSC had always functioned as a partisan decision-making body.
Its previous occupants may have tried to temper the level to which domestic politics intruded
on national security decision-making, but its presence was an unspoken reality. All Trump did
by seeking to insert Bannon into the mix was to be open about it.
Like the other professional detailees who comprised 90 percent of the NSC staff and were
expected to remain at their posts as part of a Trump administration, the whistleblower was
dismayed by the changes.
Some accounts of the early days of the Trump NSC indicate that the whistleblower was
defensive of the Ukraine policies he had helped craft during his tenure at the NSC.
When his immediate superior, Kupchan (a political appointee) departed the NSC, the
whistleblower was temporarily elevated to the position of senior director for Russia and
Eurasia until a new replacement could be found. (Flynn had reached out to
Fiona Hill , a former national intelligence officer for Russia under the administration of
George W. Bush, to take this job; Hill had accepted, but would not be available until
April.)
According to persons familiar with his work at the NSC during the Trump administration, the
whistleblower's frustration and anger soon led to acts of resistance designed to expose, and
undermine public confidence in President Trump.
Cut Out of Call to Putin
In late January 2017 Trump made several introductory telephone calls to world leaders,
including President Putin. Normally the NSC director responsible for Russia would help prepare
the president for such a call by drafting talking points and supporting memoranda, and then
monitor the call directly, either from within the Oval Office or from the White House situation
room.
According to sources familiar with the incident, Flynn did not coordinate Trump's call with
NSC staff, and as such the whistleblower, who was acting as the director for Russia and
European Affairs at the time, would have been cut out of the process altogether. When the
whistleblower tried to access the read out of the phone call afterwards, he found that no
verbatim record existed, only a
short summary released by the White House , presumably prepared by Flynn.
More frustrating was the fact that the official readout of the call released by the
Kremlin contained much more information, putting Russia in the driver's seat in terms of
defining U.S.-Russian policy priorities -- the very policy blunder the NSC was supposed to
prevent from happening. While searching for the non-existent records of the Putin-Trump
conversation, however, the whistleblower came across detailed verbatim transcripts of two other
calls made by Trump that day -- one with Mexico, and one with Australia.
On February 13, 2017,
Flynn resigned from his position as President Trump's national security adviser. The reason
given was Flynn's having misrepresented his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak when
questioned by Vice President Mike Pence. For the whistleblower, whose previous work in the
Obama NSC appeared to help Rice's efforts to unmask the very conversations Flynn was being held
accountable for, this had to have been a satisfying moment. He had to have been even more
pleased by
Trump's choice to replace Flynn -- Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, a decorated combat
veteran known for his intelligence and willingness to challenge the establishment.
McMaster rewrote the presidential guidance regarding the functioning of the NSC, replacing
the original Presidential Policy Memorandum 1 with a new version, PPM
4 , which removed Bannon from the NSC and restored much of the policy coordinating
functions that characterized the NSC under Obama.
Moreover, McMaster stuck up for
the professional detailees , such as the whistleblower. When Hill arrived in April 2017 to
assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found
himself without a job.
But instead of being returned to the CIA, McMaster, who had come to know the whistleblower
during his first month as national security adviser,
appointed him to serve as his personal assistant . The whistleblower moved from his desk
next door in the Executive Office Building, where most NSC staffer work, to the West Wing of
the White House, a move which gave him direct access to every issue that crossed McMaster's
desk.
Oval Office Leak
The new job, however, did nothing to diminish the disdain the whistleblower had for Trump.
Indeed, the proximity to the seat of power may have served to increase the concern the
whistleblower had about Trump's stewardship. On May 10, President Trump played host to Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. During the now-infamous meeting,
Trump spoke about the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey; a sensitive Israeli intelligence
source related to the ongoing fight against ISIS in Syria; and alleged Russian interference in
the 2016 presidential election.
As McMasters' assistant, the whistleblower was privy to the readout of the meeting, and was
so alarmed by what he had seen that he sent an email to John Kelly , who at that
time was serving as director of the Department of Homeland Security, detailing the president's
actions and words. All materials relating to this meeting were
collected and secured in the NSC's top secret codeword server ; the only unsecured data was
that contained in the whistleblower's email. When the media subsequently reported on the
details of Trump's meeting with the Russians, the White House condemned the "leaking of private
and highly classified information" which undermined "our national security."
According to a NSC staffer who worked in the White House at the time, an internal
investigation pointed to the whistleblower's email as the likely source of the leak, and while
the whistleblower was not directly implicated in actually transmitting classified information
to the press, he was criticized for what amounted to unauthorized communication with an outside
agency, in this case the Department of Homeland Security. When his initial two-year assignment
terminated in July 2017, the White House refused to authorize a one-year extension (a courtesy
offered to the vast majority of detailees).
The whistleblower had become a liability,
publicly smeared by right-wing bloggers and subjected to death threats. He was released
from the NSC and returned to the CIA, where he resumed his role as a Eurasian analyst. Shortly
after the whistleblower left the NSC, the full transcripts of President Trump's January 28,
2017 conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked to the press. While
several colleagues in the NSC believed that the whistleblower was behind the leaks, McMaster
refused to authorize a formal investigation which, if evidence had been found that implicated
the whistleblower, would have effectively terminated his career at the CIA.
It is at this juncture the saga of the whistleblower should have ended, avoiding the turn of
events which ended up labeling him with the now famous (or infamous) appellation. However, in
June 2018 the whistleblower's colleague, Kendall-Taylor, ended her assignment as the deputy
national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. An announcement was made to fill the
vacancy , and the whistleblower applied.
Despite having left the NSC under a cloud of suspicion regarding the unauthorized disclosure
of sensitive information, and even though his anti-Trump sentiment was common knowledge among
his colleagues and superiors, the whistleblower was picked for a position that would put him at
the center of policy formulation regarding Russia and Ukraine, and the sensitive intelligence
that influenced such. His appointment would have been approved by Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coates.
Enter Vindman
The whistleblower was well versed in the collaborative functions of the deputy national
intelligence officer position, having worked with Kendall-Taylor during his time at the NSC. He
began to develop professional relationships with a number of individuals, including the new
director of Ukraine at the NSC, Army Lieutenant Colonel
Alexander Vindman . Vindman had extensive experience regarding Ukraine and had been
detailed to the NSC from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The two soon appeared to share a mutual
concern over President Trump's worldview of both Russia and Ukraine, which deviated from the
formal policy formulations promulgated by the interagency processes that both Vindman and the
whistleblower were involved in.
The whistleblower's concerns about President Trump and Ukraine predated the July 25, 2019
telephone call, and mirrored those expressed by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, both in chronology
and content,
provided during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee . While Vindman was
critical of President Trump's deviation and/or failure to conform with policy that had been
vetted through proper channels (i.e., in conformity with PDD 4), he noted that, as president,
"It's his prerogative to handle the call whichever way he wants."
Vindman took umbrage at the non-national security topics brought up by the president, such
as investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, regarding their
relationship with a Ukrainian energy company,
Burisma Holdings , and other references to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
According to Vindman, it was this aspect of the telephone call Vindman believed to be
alarming, and which he subsequently related to an authorized contact within the intelligence
community. While Vindman remained circumspect about the identity of the intelligence community
official he communicated with about his concerns over Trump's Ukraine policy, the fact that the
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee refused to allow any discussion of this person's
identity strongly suggests that it was the whistleblower who, as the deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Ukraine, would be a logical, and fully legitimate,
interlocuter.
According to
an account published in T
he Washington Post, sometime after being informed by Vindman of the July 25
Trump-Zelensky telephone call, the whistleblower began preparing notes and assembling
information related to what he believed was untoward activity vis-à-vis Ukraine on the
part of President Trump and associates who were not part of the formal Ukraine policy making
process. He made numerous telephone calls to U.S. government officials whom he knew from his
official work as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Because much
of the information he was using was derived from classified sources, or was itself classified
in nature, the whistleblower worked from his office, using a computer system approved for
handling classified data.
Off Limits
From the perspective of security, the whistleblower's work was flawless. There was one
problem, however; investigating the actions of the president of the United States and officials
outside the intelligence community who were carrying out the instructions of the president was
not part of the whistleblower's official responsibilities.
Indeed, anything that whiffed of interference in domestic American politics was, in and of
itself, off limits to members of the intelligence community.
Robert Gates, a long-time CIA analyst and former CIA director, had warned about this
possibility
in a speech he delivered to the CIA in March 1992 on the issue of the politicization of
intelligence. "National intelligence officers", Gates noted, "are engaged in analysis and --
given their frequent contact with high-level policymakers -- their work is also vulnerable to
distortion."
There was no greater example of politicized distortion than the rabbit hole the
whistleblower had allowed himself to fall into. From Gates' perspective, the whistleblower had
committed the ultimate sin of any intelligence analyst -- he had allowed his expertise to
become tarnished by political considerations.
Worse, the whistleblower had crossed the threshold from advocating a politicized point of
view to becoming political -- that is, to intervene in the domestic political affairs of the
United States in a manner which influenced the political future of a sitting president of the
United States.
Once he had assembled his notes, he sought out staffers on the House Intelligence Committee
for guidance on how to proceed. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had
hired two former members of the Trump NSC staff who had served at the same time as the
whistleblower.
One, Abigail Grace, had worked at the NSC from 2016-2018, covering U.S.-Chinese relations.
Grace was hired by Schiff in February 2019 for the express purpose of investigating the Trump White House.
A second NSC veteran was
hired in August 2019, around the same time that the whistleblower was preparing his
complaint. That staffer was none other than Sean Misko, the whistleblowers friend and fellow
anti-Trump collaborator.
Both Misko and the whistleblower departed the NSC in 2017 under a cloud. Misko went on to
work for the Center for New American
Security , a self-described bipartisan think tank set up by two former Obama administration
officials, Michèle Flournoy and Kurt M. Campbell, before being recruited by Schiff. It
is not known if Misko was one of the House Intelligence staffers the whistleblower approached,
or if there had been any collaboration between the whistleblower and Misko about the nature of
the complaint prior to Misko being recruited by Schiff.
After conferencing with the House Intelligence Committee staffers, the whistleblower sought
legal counsel. He reached out to a lawyer affiliated with Whistleblower Aid , a group of national security lawyers
who came together in September 2017 -- eight months after the inauguration of President Trump
-- to
encourage w histleblowers within the U.S. g overnment to come out agains Trump , and
provide legal and financial assistance to anyone that chose to do so. One of Whistleblower
Aid's founding members was a lawyer named Mark Zaid.
In the days following Trump's swearing in as president, Zaid turned to Twitter to send out
messages supportive of a "coup" against Trump that would lead to the president's eventual
impeachment. The identity of the lawyer who met with the whistleblower is not known. However,
this lawyer referred the whistleblower to Bakaj, a fellow member of Whistleblower Aid, who took
on the case and provided procedural guidance regarding the preparation of the complaint. Bakaj
later brought on Zaid and another lawyer, Charles McCullough, with close ties to Senator Chuck
Schumer and Hillary Clinton, to assist in the case.
On August 12, the whistleblower completed his complaint, and forwarded it to the
intelligence community inspector general, thereby setting in motion events that produced weeks
of hearings before the House Intelligence Committee that will very likely result in Trump's
impeachment.
Shielded from Questions
While the whistleblower, through counsel, had expressed a desire to testify before the House
Intelligence Committee about the issues set forth in his complaint, he was never called to do
so, even in closed-door session. The ostensible reason behind this failure to testify was the
need to protect his anonymity, a protection that is not contained within the relevant statutes
governing whistleblower activities within the intelligence community.
Later, as witnesses were identified from the content of the whistleblower's complaint and
subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, both Schiff and Bakaj indicated
that the whistleblower's testimony was no longer needed, since the specific issues and events
covered in his complaint had been more than adequately covered by the testimony of others.
But the apparent reason Schiff and Bakaj refused to allow the whistleblower to testify, or
to be identified, was to avoid legitimate questions likely to be asked by Republican committee
members.
Namely, what was a deputy national intelligence officer of the U.S. intelligence community
doing investigating activities of a sitting president? Who, if anyone, authorized this
intervention in U.S. domestic political affairs by a CIA official? How did the whistleblower,
who had a history of documented animosity with the Trump administration that included credible
allegations of leaking sensitive material to the press for the express purpose of undermining
the credibility of the president, get selected to serve as a deputy national intelligence
officer? Who signed off on this assignment? What was the precise role played by the
whistleblower in unmasking the identities of U.S. citizens in 2016, during the Trump
transition?
Did the whistleblower maintain his friendship with Misko after leaving the NSC in July 2017?
Did the whistleblower collaborate with Misko to get the House Intelligence Committee to
investigate the issues of concern to the whistleblower before his complaint was transmitted to
the ICIG? Who did the whistleblower meet on the House Intelligence staff? What did they
discuss? Who was the lawyer the whistleblower first met regarding his intent to file a
complaint? Did the whistleblower have any contact with Whistleblower Aid prior to this
meeting?
Answers to these questions, and more, would have been useful in understanding not only the
motives of the whistleblower in filing his complaint -- was he simply a concerned citizen and
patriot, or was he part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the political viability of a
sitting president? There is no doubt that Congress has a constitutional right and obligation to
conduct proper oversight of the operations of the executive branch, and to hold the president
of the United States accountable if his conduct and actions are deemed unworthy of his office.
Whether or not the facts surrounding the July 25, 2019 telephone call between Trump and
Zelensky constitute grounds for impeachment is a political question for Congress to decide.
Intervening in Domestic Affairs
There is, however, the major issue looming in the background of this impeachment frenzy: the
intervention by elements of the intelligence community in the domestic political affairs of the
United States. There is no question that the whistleblower's complaint served as the genesis of
the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
The American people should be deeply concerned that an inquiry which could result in the
removal of a duly elected president from office was initiated in secrecy by a member of the
intelligence community acting outside the four corners of his legal responsibilities. The
legitimacy of the underlying issues being investigated by the House Intelligence Committee is
not at issue here; the legitimacy of the process by which these proceedings were initiated
is.
To find out what happened, the whistleblower should not only be identified, called before
the House Intelligence Committee, and other relevant Congressional committees, and be compelled
to answer for his actions.
Impeachment is a constitutional remedy afforded to the U.S. Congress to deal with the
political issues surrounding the conduct of a sitting president. If this constitutional remedy
can be triggered by the intelligence community in a manner which obviates laws prohibiting the
intrusion of intelligence agencies into the domestic political affairs of the United States,
and done so in a manner where the identities of the persons and organizations involved, along
with their possible motives, are shielded from both American people and those whom they elect
to represent them in Congress, then a precedent will have been set for future interventions of
this nature which undermine the very foundation of American democracy.
The political weaponization of intelligence represents a significant threat to the viability
of the American constitutional republic that cannot be ignored.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet
Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm,
and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
Great Article Scott. You are as right about the politicization of Intelligence you were
about there being no WMD's in Iraq.
There is a corollary to the old saw that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The
power to surveil also carries the power to destroy.
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used it (after WWII) to control or get what what he wanted from
politicians who had something embarrassing in their past or maybe a current affair.
FBI Director James Comey's attempt to Hoover president Trump didn't work. It does reveal
that the FBI hasn't changed much. Intelligence, especially the CIA, is so corrupted (read
politicized) it has to be considered a political faction. A very powerful political faction
that wants to run the country without being elected. If Russiagate was the coup d'essai
(first attempt) the impeachment is a coup de theatre.
Former US Senator from New York, and UN Ambassador, Danial Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003)
proposed disbanding the CIA and transferring its intelligence functions to the State Dept. He
also introduced a bill in the senate to do it. See onlinelibrary dot wiley dot com. –
"Do we still need the CIA" 15 pages pdf. If even half the CIA's 'deeds' were public and half
what it has failed to do or know became public, the voters would happily support Senator
Moynihan's bill.
Tedder , November 29, 2019 at 10:53
I always thought that focussing on Trump's rather idiotic and stupid obsession with
Ukraine and Joe Biden made little sense for impeachment, compared with a long list of valid
and important reasons of Trump's transgressions. The fact that the team who listened to the
call were disturbed by it but 'blew no whistle' implies that they probably just shrugged
their shoulders and looked away in embarrassment.
The "whistleblower" was CIA and it seems 'he' just seized this transgression as the main
chance for the security state to finally get rid of Trump, just as they have tried since his
campaign statements for restoring detente with Russia. As Scott Ritter points out, careers
have been made on the New Cold War.
Arnieus , November 29, 2019 at 10:30
Scott Ritter is obviously still a fearless truth teller. My first awareness of Scott was
an interview on CNN with the disgusting Paula Zahn during the months before the Iraq war.
Like the rest of corporate media, her job was obviously to be a cheer leader for "W" Bush's
disastrous war. She didn't know how to respond to Scott as he explained that as Chief Weapons
Inspector he had witnessed the elimination of anything that could be considered a WMD in
Saddam's Iraq. This interview, the exposure of the outdated plagiarized student thesis held
up as intelligence, the Downing St. memo, and the yellow cake lie outing of Valerie Plame all
added up to one thing. The Bush administration obviously knew there was no justification for
their "shock and awe" invasion. This was my awakening at age 50 I am embarrassed to admit. I
helped organize the local protest demonstrations of several thousand people in my area which
did no good of course. Millions of people all over the world could not stop it.
Mark Rabine , November 29, 2019 at 08:41
If you think it is proper, in fact imperative, to publically identify the whistleblower
(which is publically known anyway), then why do you keep referring to him as the
whistleblower? Not only iis it annoying it casts a shadow over the rest of the information
you present (without sources).
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 16:49
From Scott Ritter:
The idea behind my not including the name of the Whistleblower, all the while providing a
documentary trail that clearly identifies the individual in question, was to highlight the
absurdity of the ongoing decision by Congress and the Whistleblower's legal counsel to
pretend that he enjoys a modicum of anonymity. Perhaps my approach was too sophisticated by
far, but with all due respect, it certainly did not lack for courage.
OlyaPola , November 29, 2019 at 04:14
"the Politicization of Intelligence"
The purpose of "intelligence" is to enhance/preserve specific political relationships of
the entity/entities for whom activities which are defined/framed as "intelligence" are
undertaken, and hence "intelligence" is always "politicised" since it is a component of
politics a.k.a. interactions defined/framed by the "initiators" implemented in
interaction.
Often interactions deemed to facilitate de-mystification are facilitated/framed by
mystification a.k.a. perception management in which the "initiators" are also
immersed/subject to in some assay.
Bill Rood , November 29, 2019 at 00:49
Note that House Democrats just extended the PATRIOT act for 3 mos by stealthily attaching
it to a "must pass" bill.
Thank you, Scott Ritter, for this background info. I'm very upset about the Dems
protecting the whistleblower, who works for them, while persecuting others.
Sam F , November 28, 2019 at 19:34
Thanks for this detailed glimpse of secret operations at the top of the USG. Indeed
interventions of this nature "undermine the very foundation of American democracy" along with
the economic power of oligarchy that controls all branches of federal government and the mass
media.
Scott seems convinced that the NSC serves the administration, although it surrounds and
outnumbers them, controls the information and narratives available to them, is controlled by
secret tribes of the secret agencies, and acts against them everywhere when it disagrees. The
administration are mere figureheads in a government by secret agencies lost in their own
self-serving narratives. Any contrary administration would have to move in a shadow
government by force right after election, and abolish the NSC. Not that it could get
elected.
Bill Mack , November 28, 2019 at 16:21
In 1979 a presidential CAMPAIGN colluded with a foreign country for political leverage ,
and used it successfully .
Good investigative reporting in the tradition of Consortium News founder Bob Parry, who
was warned he would be "controversialized" and went full scale ahead anyway -- no, not
"anyway" -- rather ALL THE MORE, ALL THE STRONGER.
More than two years before his untimely death, Bob had it pretty much figured out, and
wrote it. See, for example The Foundering Russia-gate Scandal on Dec. 13, 2007 and Protecting
the Shaky Russia-gate Narrative on Dec. 15, 2017.
Needless to say, your VIPS colleagues are among those proud of your gutsy, professional
work. Perhaps Consortium News folks merit a reminder to send this piece of Scott's far and wide
-- and best BEFORE the politicians, who prefer not to understand why intelligence needs to be
apolitical, make the usual hay out of your findings.
This afternoon I told a close friend about your findings in getting the truth out. He
asked, Will this help Trump??
Aaaaaaaaagh, no, I said, this will help the TRUTH, which still matters. If the dumb Dems
can't find something more important and unconstitutional on which to impeach Trump, they are
beyond help.
Ray McGovern
Sam F , November 29, 2019 at 07:24
Yes, it is astounding that the Dems seek to impeach Trump for investigating their own
corruption, rather than exposing Rep corruption. I am doing the latter at one corner of the
state government level, and am sure that hundreds of times that could be found at the federal
level if the Dems were not equally enthusiastic kleptocrats and nepotists.
But we would be ahead even if Reps prosecute only Dems and Dems prosecute only Reps: the
public would at least see that Rep judges only convict Dems and probably the reverse as well.
Only the scum floats to the top in an unregulated market economy dumbed-down by
oligarchy-controlled mass media.
Fran Macadam , November 27, 2019 at 17:44
It works the same in every country, whether monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, socialist,
communist or various blends with democracy. Once you set up an unaccountable secret police or
intelligence agency and empower it to spy on people, carry out various deceptions and allow
it to operate outside the law, it becomes the real power, blackmailing and even murdering
according to its own direction.
robert e williamson jr , November 27, 2019 at 17:28
I believe Scott is right on target with his presented material. We still don't know what happened with the JFK murder but we do know that CIA knew
something big was up. So JFK get murdered and CIA prevents a thorough exacting investigation. I see CIA
interference as being political. What else would it be be. CIA escaped any blame at the time
and the president was gone and replace. Political.
Then Robert fell, a likely winner of the next election he was terminated.
In this day and age CIA can't afford getting caught with gunpowder residue anywhere on it
entity if a sitting president happens to catch a round or two. The alternative is to use all
that money the Super Wealthy Elites have stashed and go openly political. Hiding in plan
sight as always.
Veronica Roberts , November 27, 2019 at 15:26
Excellent report, Scott Ritter. Thank you. I have always trusted your reports and analysis
since the days of Iraq's supposed
weapons of mass destruction. You have really served the American people well.
phree , November 27, 2019 at 14:40
Interesting stuff. I'm certainly against politicization of intelligence. I am troubled
about the whistleblower not being willing and allowed to testify.
But the rest of this sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. I'll have to reread
Ritter's prior work, which I viewed very favorably. Given this mess, though, I'll have to
reconsider. Let's assume the whistleblower was out to get the President. What difference does
the whistleblower's motivations t make if the President was doing exactly what the
whistleblower said the President was doing? Prosecutors are always out to get criminals, and
we don't let the criminals go just because of that. Prosecutors get tips from all sorts of
unsavory people, such as informants and criminal competitors. Are they supposed to just
ignore those tips?
There are a number of other problems with this theory.
First, Ritter confuses "political" with "partisan." Foreign policy is necessarily
political -- can't be avoided. What it shouldn't become is partisan -- the party in power
shouldn't leverage the United States' national security interests to gain political power
over their domestic opponents. I hope we can all agree on that. When we say intelligence
shouldn't be political, we mean intelligence shouldn't be "fixed around the policy." Even
going into Iraq, as stupid as that was, and as bad as the intelligence agencies acted, that's
different than using national foreign policy to stick it to your domestic political rivals.
The Bushies and the neocons really thought it was in the national interest to go into Iraq.
It also isn't being "political" in the "partisan" sense to become wedded to a policy that you
helped developed, it just means you think that's the right policy and should be followed
regardless of which party or politician is in office. It's actually the opposite of
political. Fiona Hill is a perfect example: To her, Russia is and always will be evil and
duplicitous, and she's going to say that no matter which party is in the oval office. She may
not be right, but she sure isn't partisan. If you are convinced that the President is selling
the U.S. and the Ukraine out, what are you supposed to do?
Second, it is a real stretch to call phone calls to friends and acquaintances to verify
the reports of the July 25 call and the surrounding circumstances "an investigation" of the
president. Really? Sounds pretty deep statey to me.
Third, why does Ritter refer to the President's request of a "favor" of a Biden
investigation as "non-national security topics" rather than what it clearly was -- a request
for help that could only be primarily for Trump's personal benefit in our domestic politics?
Such sophistry is troubling and revealing. If the whistleblower's claim is true, and it sure
looks like it is based on publicly available evidence, Trump was giving Ukraine $391 Million
reasons to fabricate evidence on Biden. Even the mere announcement, as Sondland says, would
be politically damaging to the candidate who polls the best against Trump in key
constituencies with no benefit at all to the U.S.'s national security. That's why the story
is troubling, not because it related to "non-national security topics."
Fourth, who else other than an anti-Trump lawyer is the whistleblower supposed to choose?
A pro-Trumper? Ridiculous criticism.
Fifth, he's got friends here and there, and he might have leaked. This is just more "deep
state" conspiracy nonsense, and the old look at all of this smoke, there must be a fire. It
was so smoky and he was such a swampy deep stater that he was rehired into the White House
despite those concerns? Yeah, maybe, or maybe the suspicions were not substantiated. And,
again, what does any of that have to do with Trump essentially soliciting a bribe in exchange
for aid and/or a White House meeting. All this shows is that Trump, who complains that
they're all out to get him, was stupid enough to get caught. Because he was stupid enough to
rely on Rudy Giuliani.
So, this would make a nice spy novel, but it is pretty weak tea to support the claim that
the Whistleblower did anything other than report what he thought was an improper and likely
illegal act, and even weaker tea to support a claim that we ought to just ignore the whole
scandal.
Withholding aid and a White House meeting unless Ukraine agreed to announce an
investigation the primary purpose of which is to benefit the President personally and
politically is wrong. It's wrong for Trump and it will be wrong for every president of any
party. If Ritter isn't alarmed about that, it says more about him than it does about the
whistleblower. If Ritter isn't also troubled by that allegation, and the evidence that has
come out to support it, his judgment is more suspect than the whistleblower's.
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 17:09
From Scott Ritter:
The bottom line here is that a deputy national intelligence officer charged with
overseeing intelligence activities regarding the Russian-Ukraine target used his position to
initiate a Whistleblower complaint which failed to conform to the legal requirements required
of such. Many sins are conducted by officials "under the cover of law", and this is one. You
can spin and cherry pick and obfuscate the article all you like, but you can't avoid the
reality that an intelligence officer, operating under a veil of secrecy, initiated a
political action under the color of law designed to unseat the President of the United
States. At a minimum this individual should be identified and subjected to an appropriate
amount of investigation as to his motive and that of those who collaborated/conspired with
him.
John Neal Spangler , November 27, 2019 at 14:12
Anner is right. A huge problem is that most US bureaucrats have never lived abroad and
gone thru culture shock. They are so rigidly American they do not understand foreign
cultures
jhawk620 , November 27, 2019 at 12:12
this is an historical abstract into the machinations of bureaucrats within the U S
government. Well worth the time to read it.
Ojkelly , November 27, 2019 at 11:38
Blowing the whistle on the whistle blower! Great article. He learned well.. I am still in
shock from Morrell's op ed in NYT, "I used to run the CIA and I am for Hillary Clinton".
I know the morels post the government career doesn't include a job at Booz Allen or SAIC or $
think tank world, just a desk at the Clinton Foundation BGS. Plus only a few crumbs from CBS
and CNN. Maybe that is an instructive object lesson for other senior retiring officials.
michael , November 27, 2019 at 19:52
Good point, although the MSM is spiking any negative Biden stories. Biden seems to be the CIA's preferred Democrat.
Heavy published their "five facts" on the presumed whistleblower several days ago, including
that he worked as the point man with Biden on Ukraine issues. Evidently he was so
pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia (pointed out by Mike Cernovich who suggested he was involved in
leaks, as noted in Foreign Policy back in 2017), that it must have been difficult for him to
fall in line and do his required job, implementing new foreign policy with a new
administration. Whether he "went native" or truly decided to over-ride the President's
policies in favor of the old Obama "consensus community" policies for Ukraine, he has crossed
several lines interfering with foreign policy and national security.
Ritter mentions treason, but that is only applicable to wartime. This case is classical
sedition. If the CIA wants to run the country, they should run for office (as several did and
won as Democrats in 2018).
Llitchfield , November 27, 2019 at 20:55
Exactly. The relevant timeline is not the 2020 election.
The relevant timeline is of VP Biden's alleged activities on behalf of his son while serving
as VP and as the Obama administration point man on Ukraine. The sequence whereby various
phone calls by Biden and his son resulted in monies departing Ukr bank accounts and arriving
in American bank accounts Those are the activities that need to be investigated. Before Biden
can dream of running for POTUS.
It is in a sense coincidence that Biden's activities became known to the public and others at
this moment in time.
AnneR , November 27, 2019 at 08:09
Mr Ritter's own anti-Russian bias is clearly on display throughout this piece, which
reduces considerably its pretensions toward objectivity.
As for the politicization of the secret agencies – as a fairly recent phenomenon or
so it would seem from Mr Ritter's piece – from my reading and understanding of the past
70+ years, these agencies and their forebears have *Always* been politically biased. Not
necessarily regarding whichever of the dual headed monopoly party that has controlled US
politics for even longer, but biased always on behalf of the Ruling Elites.
As for the educational attainments of these secret agencies' staffs and their supposed
knowledge of, in this instance, Russia and other eastern European/Eurasian countries, I would
suggest that they apparently understand very little about Russia particularly, no matter how
well they speak, read and write the language; and what they remain steeped in, for reasons
having to do with the insatiable desire for the US to remain *the* hegemon and the political
biases of their university tutors/professors which they clearly absorb (their leanings
probably already in those directions anyway), is the COLD WAR US/western erroneous
apprehension of what the USSR intended. Of course Russia (the USSR before) want to dominate
the world – we do, so obviously other such nations (China being the other one) want to
overtake us. We visit war, coups, invasions, destruction, siege warfare (sanctions) on every
nation that won't do as we want – therefore Russia and China want to do exactly the
same thing to us and the rest of the world.
Apparently the Anglo-American ruling elites and their instruments (such as the staffs of
these agencies) are utterly incapable of conceiving of, perceiving that other cultures exist
and that those cultural perspectives are *NOT* the same as ours, do not want to be exactly
like ours (rightly so). WE cannot, do not, are utterly unwilling, are incapable, lack the
imagination to try to walk in the footwear of another, very different culture. But for the
world's sake, we need to start doing so. Now.
Actually, the anti-Russian bias of the author is not clear at all. I surmise that Anne is
displeased by what he did not write. For example, there is a revolving door between academia
and CIA, and no field is more contaminated than Russian and East European studies. For
details, reading "Team B" at Wikipedia is a good start.
Skip Scott , November 27, 2019 at 13:52
How true. The CIA (Capitalism's Invisible Army) killed JFK when I was seven years old.
They've been in charge my whole life. Assassinating a sitting president isn't "political"? I
would think its way beyond "allowing your expertise to be tarnished by political
considerations". It is willful blindness to think there is any remnant of a "constitutional
republic" in the USA, especially from a former "intelligence" officer.
Reading Putin's speeches and interviews, it is plain to see that he is interested in the
welfare of his citizens, and maintaining sovereignty by refusing vassal status to Empire.
Imagine if we had a president truly committed to serving "We the People".
CharlieK , November 29, 2019 at 05:27
Yes, Anne, there is an uncontested, imperial mindset that seeps through the US body
politic. And a central part of that imperial mindset is the demonization of Russia, of
everything Russian, and anything that Russia might do. This has been ongoing for at least
over 100 years, since the revolution of 1917.
It is so ingrained into the lifeblood of this
country that to challenge it results in being condemned as a heretic. One perfect example is
the delusional version of events surrounding Crimea, which was a part of Russia for centuries
until Khrushchev "transferred" Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukranian SFSR in 1954.
Who
even bothers with such historical facts! Moreover, it was incredible to watch the impeachment
hearings, as everyone in the room, Republican and Democrat, sat around and discussed Ukraine
as if it was ours to control. Imagine for one second if Russia (or China) were discussing
Mexico in the same terms, or if they had intervened in a similar fashion as the US National
Security State did to midwife the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine. Under such
circumstances we would probably be ready to declare war.
All of our meddling in Ukraine is
for the sole purpose of solidifying US hegemony and undermining Russia. Would the US tolerate
Mexico joining a military bloc a la NATO that was a part of a Russian global military
alliance? To ask the question is itself heretical. Anne, your declaration that the US is
unwilling and genetically incapable of walking in the footwear of another, very different
culture is totally accurate. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever that this
imperial mindset is likely to change. And if history is any lesson, this kind of imperial
mindset never changes until it is forced to do so, as Germany and Japan learned as a result
of WWII.
Sally Snyder , November 27, 2019 at 08:03
As shown in this article, there is a key aspect to the entire anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine
story that has received no coverage by the mainstream media:
The West's blanket condemnation of Russia and its so-called annexation of the Crimean
peninsula in 2014 would suggest that more of us need to educate ourselves on the history of
Russia and Crimea in particular before we whole heartedly swallow the narrative that our
political leaders and media foist on us.
TimN , November 27, 2019 at 07:41
Just as I suspected, the CIA directly interfered in US politics. Great article, but why
the coy insistence on not naming the "whistle-blower, " yourself, Scott? And of course
"whistle-blower" should be in quotes throughout the article, no? His name is Eric
Ciaramella.
This is simply Russiagate 2.0, with the "Intelligence" agencies having run completely amok at
this point. Very disturbing, but not really surprising.
Jeff Davis , November 29, 2019 at 08:49
" why the coy insistence on not naming the "whistle-blower, "
Indeed, the universal coyness in the repetitive use of the term "the whistleblower",
beyond becoming now tedious and annoying, has so embedded the term in discussions of this
issue, that it has now become the default usage. To the point where writing Eric Ciaramella,
without explaining that he is the presumed "the whistleblower", would leave one wondering who
this Eric person is. To overcome this problem, I would suggest, at least as a temporary
measure, that the term "Eric Ciaramella a.k.a. 'the whistleblower' "be used instead.
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 16:48
From Scott Ritter:
The idea behind my not including the name of the Whistleblower, all the while providing a
documentary trail that clearly identifies the individual in question, was to highlight the
absurdity of the ongoing decision by Congress and the Whistleblower's legal counsel to
pretend that he enjoys a modicum of anonymity. Perhaps my approach was too sophisticated by
far, but with all due respect, it certainly did not lack for courage.
michael , November 27, 2019 at 06:36
Excellent detailed summary of the SNAFU of politicized national foreign policy that has
led to the unhinged continual neocon/ neolib invasions and coups and sanctions this
century.
The whistleblower's complaint was rejected as "not urgent" by the DNI with the government
lawyers' advice (rejected as most whistleblower's complaints are in government, for better or
worse).
"After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division
opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed."
When the whistleblower refused to accept this decision, and instead took his complaint to
Schiff, as a politicized weapon, he and anyone else involved should have been or now be
charged with Sedition. (Obama would have thrown the whistleblower's butt in jail as he did so
many others.)
The whole point of Electing a President is to change ineffective policies (in the new
President's view), particularly in foreign policy. Unelected expert advisers are only that.
While Ciaramella and Vindman may feel the consensus community foreign policy agendas are
sacrosanct and untouchable by any new President, their only recourse is to advise, make their
arguments, and as the constitution states, Heads of Departments can disagree in writing. Or
they can resign.
As Thomas Jefferson noted "the President is the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it is from him alone 'that foreign nations or their agents
are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'; that whatever he communicated as
such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the expression of the nation'; and that
no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or 'to interpose between him and any
other branch of government, under the pretext of either's transgressing their functions.'
There is a major difference between oversight by Congress and interfering in executive branch
functions (such as taking up a rejected whistleblower's complaint for political reasons.
Where were these people with Snowden's, and Manning and Assange's much more serious
complaints?).
Stephen Cohen has emphasized the essential ability of elected Presidents to meet in private
with foreign leaders, as every President since Kennedy has done (saving us from nuclear
destruction in JFK's case and leading to the fall of the Soviet Union in Reagan's). That's
where important deals are concluded and military, intelligence, and state members whose jobs
depend on warmongering advantages, cannot and should not be allowed access to sensitive
national security decisions.
As Chuck Schumer said ""Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have
six ways from Sunday at getting back at you". This is essentially the rotten core of American
government today. The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country
and its politics since 2016, which is much more dangerous than anything the Russians could
ever do.
Litchfield , November 27, 2019 at 21:16
Isn't there also something in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from conducting an
"independent" foreign policy? That is, the president and the State Department (part of the
executive branch) are the ones who make foreign policy. A senator, say, can't go off on his
or her own, travel to a foreign country, and advance different policies from those advanced
by the POTUS and State. In this respect McCain was way out of line. Maybe because he thought
he *should* have been the pres. He should have been punished publicly for his
transgression.
Looks like it it up to the Orange One to draw a line on these off-the-reservation
activities, whether by those in Congress or in the national security apparatus. They should
all be charged with sedition.
David Otness , November 27, 2019 at 23:41
"The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country and its politics
since 2016 ."
If one truly studies such things -- seriously -- objectively -- that date will be determined
to be November 22, 1963.
"... The EU are, really, really pissed with the USA for making this happen. ..."
"... So the EU lost Russia and for the bobby prize they got the entirely corrupt Ukraine instead ..."
"... You will know when the **** has well and truly hit the fan for the Ukraine, when the USA finally uncovers some 'er' surprise evidence that the Ukraine government actually shot down that Malaysian flight and hit them with across the board sanctions to well and truly cripple it prior to trying to dump it back on Russia but the EU gets stuck with it for a while longer, to become a festering den of organized crime in the EU. ..."
The EU are, really, really pissed with the USA for making this happen. They had always
hoped to get a broken up Russia into the EU and now, instead, they will have to deal with a
Russia China economic union with strong defense ties and whole bunch of other countries
around the globe tied to it.
So the EU lost Russia and for the bobby prize they got the entirely corrupt Ukraine
instead, almost like the USA wanted to **** the EU up with the Ukraine on purpose (they just
wanted to **** over Russia and got way too greedy trying to pillage the Ukraine and turned
the entire mess into a real **** show, that only has one way forward for the Ukraine, grovelling back to Russia and Russia will make higher and higher demands of them because who
wants to deal with a entirely corrupt **** show).
You will know when the **** has well and truly hit the fan for the Ukraine, when the USA
finally uncovers some 'er' surprise evidence that the Ukraine government actually shot down
that Malaysian flight and hit them with across the board sanctions to well and truly cripple
it prior to trying to dump it back on Russia but the EU gets stuck with it for a while
longer, to become a festering den of organized crime in the EU.
Russia still says some nice things about the Ukraine but they are in no hurry to get them
back.
"... In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently. ..."
"... Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons. ..."
"... Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy. ..."
America Doesn't Need Another Weakling NATO Ally Macedonia is the latest nation invited into the alliance, but how does
that enhance America's (or Europe's) security?•
July 19,
2018
Utenriksdept /
cc At last week's NATO summit, President Donald
Trump denounced the allies for taking advantage of American taxpayers. Then he approved their latest subsidies. He even agreed to
invite a military weakling, Macedonia, to join NATO, which will add yet another nation to our military dole.
When George Washington warned Americans against forming a "passionate attachment" to other countries, he might have been thinking
of the Balkans. Indeed, a couple decades later, John Quincy Adams criticized proposals to aid Greece against the Ottoman Empire,
which then ruled that region. America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy," he intoned.
On into the 20th century, the Balkans were in turmoil. Germany's "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, warned that "the great
European War would come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." That's exactly what happened in 1914.
It took decades and two world wars for the Balkans to stabilize. But after the Cold War ended, Yugoslavia, which had emerged from
Europe's previous convulsions, broke apart. One of the smaller pieces was Macedonia.
The battles among the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians were bloody and brutal. In contrast, Macedonia provided comic relief.
The small, mountainous, landlocked nation of two million people won its independence without a fight in 1991, though Athens launched
a verbal and economic war against Skopje over the latter's use of the name "Macedonia."
Perhaps modern Greeks feared that a resurrected Alexander the Great would lead the newly freed Macedonian hordes south and conquer
Greece. Skopje entered the United Nations under the provisional name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM. In June, after
only 27 years, the two governments agreed that Macedonia/FYROM would be called the Republic of North Macedonia -- though the decision
must still be ratified by the Macedonian people in a referendum.
More serious was the insurgency launched by ethnic Albanians who made up about a quarter of the nation's population. The battle
two decades ago over Kosovo inflamed ethnic relations in Macedonia, eventually resulting in a short-lived insurgency. Although the
fighters disarmed, Skopje's politics remained nationalist and difficult. Last year, a more liberal administration took over, but
the country's democratic institutions remain fragile.
Indeed, Freedom House only rates the nation "partly free." The group cites voter intimidation, political patronage networks, violent
protests, and problems with judicial impartiality and due process. Particularly serious were the threats against press freedom, which
led to a rating of "not free" in that area. While NATO's newer members tend to score lower than "Old Europe," as Donald Rumsfeld
once referred to the original allies, Macedonia is a step further down. Only Turkey, an incipient dictatorship, is worse: it almost
certainly would not be considered for membership today.
None of this mattered last week, however. After suffering Trump's many slings and arrows, alliance members approved an invitation
for Skopje to join NATO. Macedonian lawmaker Artan Grubi called it "our dream coming true. We have been in the waiting hall for too
long."
That's because Macedonia had hoped for an invite back in 2008 at the Bucharest summit, but was blocked by Athens over the name
dispute, and has wanted to join ever since. Macedonia's Defense Minister Radmila Sekerinska said, "With NATO membership, Macedonia
becomes part of the most powerful alliance. That enhances both our security and economic prosperity." Money and status are expected
to follow.
But how would this benefit the United States and other NATO members? James Ker-Lindsay at the London School of Economics made
the astonishing claim that "opening the way for the country to join NATO would be a big win for the organization at a crucial time
when concerns over Russian influence in the Western Balkans are growing in many capitals." As Skopje goes, so goes Europe? Not likely.
If Washington and Moscow are engaged in a new "great game," it is not a battle for Macedonia.
In fact, Macedonia is a security irrelevancy, destined to require American aid to create the pretense that its military is fit
for the transatlantic alliance. Skopje spent just $112 million on its armed forces last year, ahead of only one NATO member, Montenegro.
That was barely 1 percent of its GDP, putting Macedonia near the back of the NATO pack.
With an 8,000-man military, one is tempted to ask, why bother? But then one could similarly pose that query to several other NATO
members. Skopje's military is roughly the same size as Albania's, slightly bigger than Slovenia's, and about four times the size
of Montenegro's. None will be of much use in a conflict with the only conceivable threat, Russia.
So why bring Macedonia into NATO?
Some American policymakers see alliance membership as a means to socialize nations like Macedonia, helping them move towards democracy.
However, the European Union, which sets standards governing a range of domestic policies, has always been better suited to this task,
and EU membership imposes no security obligations on Washington. With the name controversy tentatively resolved, Skopje could begin
the EU accession process -- if the Europeans are willing. That is properly their -- not Washington's -- responsibility.
In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw
Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it
violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic
toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions
in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently.
The Balkans are peripheral even to Europe and matter little to America's defense. The states and peoples there tend to be more
disruptive and less democratic than their neighbors, reflecting the region's unstable history. (North) Macedonia's 8,000 troops aren't
likely to be reborn as the Spartan 300 and hold off invading Russians. So why should America threaten war on Skopje's behalf?
Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes
become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons.
Expansion also complicates alliance decision-making. No doubt, Washington wishes its European allies would do what they're told:
spend more, shut up, and deploy where America wants them. That doesn't work out very well in practice, alas, as Trump has discovered
in Europe (though nations with smaller militaries are more likely to acquiesce than nations with bigger ones). An organization of
30 members, which NATO will become if Macedonia is added, is a more complex and less agile creature than one of 16, the number that
existed before NATO raced east.
Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining
to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative
perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy.
Finally, expanding the alliance is nonsensical in light of the president's criticisms of the Europeans. Hiking U.S. military spending,
increasing manpower and materiel deployments in Europe, and adding new members all contradict his demand that the allies do more
and signal that the president is not serious in his demands. That leaves the Europeans with little incentive to act, especially since
most of their peoples perceive few if any security threats.
Yet again President Trump has been exposed as a thoughtless blowhard. His rabid supporters have likely enjoyed his confrontational
rhetoric, but he has done nothing to turn it into policy. The Europeans need only wait for his attacks to ebb and then they can proceed
much the same as before. The status quo will continue to reign, impervious to change.
Montenegro always resembled the Duchy of Grand Fenwick from the delightful novel The Mouse that Roared . Macedonia is
the Duchy of North Grand Fenwick, a slightly larger neighboring state with similar features but additional problems. Neither is remotely
relevant to American security. America doesn't need yet another security black hole as an alliance partner.
"... With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode. ..."
"... The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes, especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics, and there are many such aspects. ..."
With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up
especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate
the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and
presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist
revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode.
This is apparently a move by the
Democratic establishment to escalate the confrontation with the White House by adding to the
charge that Trump held up financial assistance to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelenskiy renewed Ukraine's investigation of the Bidens' corrupt activities the charge that
Trump also held military assistance hostage in return for an investigation of the Bidens.
Unfortunately, Ignatuis's 'narrative' falls flat on its face when it is understood, as former
US National Security Council Europe-Eurasia chief Fiona Hill testified to Congress in the
impeachment hearings that the hold up was part of a general delay caused by a broad policy
review conducted by the incoming Trump administration ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
, pp. 227-8).
Ignatius writes that while Trump fiddles, Ukraine burns, that Ukrainians died while, if not
because Trump withheld military aid to Kyiv:
"As Ukrainians were struggling with near-daily shellfire, Trump appeared to treat military
aid appropriated by Congress as a personal political tool." "Trump's Ukraine machinations have
yielded something like what we've seen in these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power
and a corresponding increase in Russia's military and diplomatic leverage." (Here he cites
Syria specifically.) "Russian diplomatic gains have also been evident in Ukraine. While Trump's
lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was flitting around the country disparaging U.S. diplomats, Moscow
was seeking a deal to stabilize Ukraine on favorable terms. The Russians are now discussing an
agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the man Trump importuned in his
infamous July 25 phone call for a 'favor' in investigating his political rivals in return for
military help." Ignatius hits this point again: "Zelensky has pressed ahead with his peace
efforts, and Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces have now disengaged at Zolote and two other
crossing points."
Ignatius blames several deaths on Trump's weapons' supply delay, as he tries to make the
debate over Ukraine policy, as he states explicitly, "more visceral" -- that is, emotional --
rather than rational. To achieve this effect, he closes his article with supposed dramatic
effect: "Here are some details from recent OSCE cease-fire monitoring reports: On Oct. 5, a man
and a woman died after a grenade exploded in their apartment in Kurakhove; on Oct. 24, a man
was injured by shrapnel near Luhansk; on Nov. 1, a man was injured by shelling in Spartak. As
you watch the impeachment hearings, remember this basic fact: While Trump was playing politics
on Ukraine, people who depended on U.S. military aid were getting killed and wounded."
Like
Canadian Professor Paul Robinson, when I read this I immediately smelled a rat, but Prof.
Robinson beat me to the punch in exposing this falsehood. As it turns out, these casualties of
the civil war are all almost certainly to have been inflicted by the pro-Kyiv Madian forces and
not by the separatists. In the case of the grenade exploding in the apartment, neither of the
warring sides appears to be responsible, since a criminal was opened in the matter, suggesting,
no one fired or threw the grenade into the apartment, since a criminal case was opened. In all
cases, Ignatius's casualties occurred in areas controlled by the rebels, suggesting the
Ukrainian government forces fired on rebel territory, inflicting the casualties (
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/trump-is-killing-ukrainians/
). Whatever the case, Ignatius would have no way of knowing otherwise, but he wrote so as to
imply the rebels and, of course, Russia and its agent Trump are to blame. He likely assumed and
hoped the rebels and thus Russia and Trump 'were responsible', while failing to look deeper
into the OSCE report in the way Prof. Robinson studiously has. Nevertheless, Ignatius elsewhere
in the piece provides detailed OSCE statistics on ceasefire violations from such reports, but
somehow he missed the details on the locations of the casualties and under which side's control
they are under.
The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's
delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to
send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil
war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we
have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to
distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes,
especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the
domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics,
and there are many such aspects.
Ignatius also implies that the Russian-backed Donbass separatists are the attackers, even
though it was Kyiv which declared and started the civil war, refusing to negotiate with the
separatists. The separatists have seceded and are preventing the Ukrainian government's forces
from seizing their breakaway regions and forcing them back into the Ukrainian fold without any
concessions. But Ignatius says: "Zelensky announced Oct. 1 that he had agreed to Russian calls
to implement a formula proposed in 2016 by then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
that, in Zelensky's version, would provide withdrawal of Russian proxy forces followed by
elections in the separatist areas of the east." There is no 'Zelensky version' of the
Steinmeier plan. There is only the Steinmeier plan, which seeks to get both sides to withdraw
forces from the front line, not just 'Russian proxy forces.'
Oddly, Ignatius uses terms such as "Russian-backed forces" and "Russian proxy forces." He
never mentions the once falsely claimed tens of thousands of Russian troops occupying Ukraine.
What happened, Mr Ignatius? Tens of thousands turned out to be a few thousand who temporarily
intervened twice to save the Donbass rebels from encirclement and destruction.
Ignatius is at wit's end over Trump's lack of diplomatic action in the peace negotiations
and Russian "diplomatic gains," noting: "How is the United States shaping events as Ukraine is
rebalanced? America isn't really a player. Trump said in September while meeting Zelensky in
New York: 'I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your
problem.'" Also: "Trump's Ukraine machinations have yielded something like what we've seen in
these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power and a corresponding increase in Russia's
military and diplomatic leverage." However, it was the Barack Obama administration that: helped
spark the entire crisis with its revolution-promotion policies, stayed away from the talks
between eventually overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition
sponsored by the EU and Russia leading to the 20 February 2014 agreement that could have
averted all that followed (including the Donbass civil war), lied about who shot at protesters
on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 sparking the revolution and the agreement's burial, did
nothing to stop the new Maidan regime from starting the civil war, and did not participate in
the Minsk peace process. This is the reason America is not a player in the peace process, and
Russia and the EU, which have been participants from the beginning, are. Any US role under the
Trump administration in peace talks that involve Putin would be called by the likes of Ignatius
as appeasement of, and capitulation to the dictator Putin by his agent and colluder Trump.
Meaningful participation by Washington is now impossible given 'Russiagate' and 'Ukrainegate'.
While I am no admirer of President Trump or his foreign policy, as i have written several
times, There is little to no reason to place the onus for the American absence from diplomatic
action surrounding Ukraine on Trump's shoulders.
President Zelenskiy's 'critics' have descended on key front line sectors to prevent the
drawback of Ukrainian armed forces and ultranationalist-dominated 'volunteer battalions. These
radicals are so dangerous that Zelenskiy was forced a few weeks ago to visit them and appeal to
them to support his attempt to broker peace in Donbass. Afterwards, they issued a video
refusing to compromise and threatening Zelenskiy in an undefined way if he continued with his
peace efforts.
It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no
reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States
itself. The inevitable confusion and apathy is particularly dangerous in a country with the
enormous responsibility of being the leader of the democratic community of states the U.S.
purports itself to be. It will allow political leaders with strong media support to manipulate
reality and lead the country down a dark alley from which there is no return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org . Dr. Hahn's
most recent book is Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . He
has authored three previous, well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's
Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above:
Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000
(Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
"... Since 2014, it's been glaringly obvious to astute (and honest) observers that the Administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden supported the most vicious street mobs in Europe, people who considered themselves proud fascists . Western media routinely censored this part of the story. Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made deals with their leaders and was caught on an open phone line handpicking the next unelected leader of Ukraine, someone they could sell to the US public: "Yats is the guy." ..."
"... Representative Dennis Kucinich expressed outrage on Bill O'Reilly's TV show that the Obama Administration had aided this bloody, illegitimate coup. The head of the CIA-linked STRATFOR called Ukraine " the most blatant coup in history. " ..."
"... Aiding and abetting fascist militias to violently siege a foreign capital is not considered a crime in Washington DC, at all. Conversely, it is business as usual, as Bolivians and Venezuelans can attest to. ..."
"... Woody Allen directed a film entitled "Crimes and Misdemeanors." That pretty much sums up the DC circus unfolding in Congress. Everything above is completely true, and yet Barack Obama is heralded as someone in the neighborhood of saints and superheroes. To the belligerent American empire, Obama was a star quarterback. Let's not even delve into Barack's support for Al Qaeda in Syria , and another half-million dead there, or we'll be here all day. ..."
"... This farce is so laughable on its face and so irrelevant to the American people's interests, that it's difficult to overstate the insanity -- and outrageous hypocrisy -- of the Democrats' contrived "Ukrainegate" case. This impeachment charge has nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong. ..."
"... In 2014 , Barack Obama's White House, "refused to include weapons in an aid package for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance." Obama didn't send any weapons at all, which would have provoked Russia to an even greater degree, after overthrowing their legitimately elected next-door ally and tearing Ukraine apart. It was obvious that Russia wasn't "invading" Ukraine, as propaganda memes claimed, but simply responding to these international crimes and to the dangerous destabilization on its border. The US had already done quite enough damage, and they didn't need to escalate a proxy war against Russia toward nuclear Armageddon . ..."
"... Hunter Biden knew absolutely nothing about Ukraine or the natural gas industry. The nepotism was glaring. This was clear graft, payback, kickback, corruption, parasites descending after the violent seizure of the state. Biden the elder was in charge of US Ukraine policy, and specifically the big money spigot, after the illegal, US-supported coup there. ..."
"... Biden's conflict of interest was so obvious that Trump certainly believed he was onto something. Joe Biden, and media sympathetic to his claims, has predictably tried to cloud the issue, but the corruption is too obvious not to notice. This should, and may, have ended Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid. ..."
"... What happened in Ukraine was old-timey Smash & Grab , a reckless attack right on Russia's western border. Joe Biden arrived to grab as much loot from Ukraine's gas sector as he possibly could through a cut-out, his son. Biden used his leverage over Ukraine's international "loan guarantees" (which is money the coup leaders receive but don't have to pay back) to finance their new illegitimate junta. ..."
"... This current Ukrainegate impeachment charade appears to be motivated only by blind partisanship and the desire to insulate corrupt insiders like Joe Biden from any scrutiny of their actions. The farce has gone so over-the-top that even as Democratic partisan media heralded the testimony of Trump's Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, Donald Trump's allies have already used portions of her testimony as a video advertisement for his reelection! ..."
Did you know that Donald Trump had the State Department, USAID,
NED , and the CIA fund and train
Neo-Nazi, fascist militias to overthrow the government of Ukraine? These riot mobs, primarily
Svoboda and
Right Sector , stormed the capital, firebombed and shot the police, and destroyed democracy inside Ukraine. When the legitimately
elected president was forced out by the rioters, the population which had supported him in the east seceded from the country, tearing
the entire nation into pieces and sparking a civil war. The Ukraine civil war has cost the lives of
over 13,000 Ukrainians . There is so much blood on Donald Trump's hands.
Oh, wait a minute! That was Barack Obama . Change that paragraph, please.
Since 2014, it's been glaringly obvious to astute (and honest) observers that the Administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden
supported the most vicious street mobs in Europe, people who considered themselves proud
fascists . Western media
routinely censored this part of the story. Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made deals with their leaders and
was caught on an open phone line
handpicking the next unelected leader of Ukraine, someone they could sell to the US public: "Yats is the guy."
America's proxy terrorists burned Kiev, seized power violently, and through the power of the purse strings, Obama's Administration
installed friendly-faced fascists, who immediately set about attacking their countrymen in the east, with a policy of mass murder
and indiscriminate bombings. Eastern provinces of
Crimea and
Donetsk , which notably had supported
the ousted president, held referenda. The people there voted overwhelmingly to secede from the illegitimate, unelected, foreign-sponsored
coup regime in Kiev.
The above is most certainly not the reason cited this week for Impeachment hearings.
Aiding and abetting fascist militias to violently siege a foreign capital is not considered a crime in Washington DC, at all.
Conversely, it is business as usual, as Bolivians and Venezuelans can attest to.
Woody Allen directed a film entitled "Crimes and Misdemeanors." That pretty much sums up the DC circus unfolding in
Congress. Everything above is completely true, and yet Barack Obama is heralded as someone in the neighborhood of saints and superheroes.
To the belligerent American empire, Obama was a star quarterback. Let's not even delve into Barack's
support for Al Qaeda in Syria , and another half-million dead there, or we'll be here all day.
Donald Trump made a phone call. In his phone call, he is said to have bullied the President of Ukraine a little. He may have even
delayed some weapons transfers to that country, which was engaged in a proxy war with nuclear-armed Russia and its separatist allies
in the east of Ukraine.
That's a crime? A real crime? In light of over thirteen thousand slaughtered and an illegal coup in broad daylight? Trump's telephone
call is the real crime?
Other Presidents haven't bullied other client-state puppet leaders, ever?
And why exactly is the President of the United States of America required to send lethal weapons to
foreign fascists at all? Has anyone located that section of the Constitution?
This farce is so laughable on its face and so irrelevant to the American people's interests, that it's difficult to overstate
the insanity -- and outrageous hypocrisy -- of the Democrats' contrived "Ukrainegate" case. This impeachment charge has nothing whatsoever
to do with right and wrong.
In 2014 , Barack Obama's White House, "refused to include weapons in an aid package for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned
plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance." Obama didn't send any weapons at all, which would have
provoked Russia to an even greater degree, after overthrowing their legitimately elected next-door ally and tearing Ukraine apart.
It was obvious that Russia wasn't "invading" Ukraine, as propaganda memes claimed, but simply responding to these international crimes
and to the dangerous destabilization on its border. The US had already done quite enough damage, and they didn't need to escalate
a proxy war against Russia toward nuclear Armageddon .
Which brings us now to Donald Trump, who became interested in Joe Biden's obvious corruption inside Ukraine, installing his own
son on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma . Hunter Biden knew absolutely nothing about Ukraine or the natural gas
industry. The nepotism was glaring. This was clear graft, payback, kickback, corruption, parasites descending after the violent seizure
of the state. Biden the elder was in charge of US Ukraine policy, and specifically the big money spigot, after the illegal, US-supported
coup there.
Then -- as Joe will be Joe -- Biden bragged publicly about
getting Ukraine's top prosecutor fired to the strains of Washington insider laughter. The Ukrainian prosecutor had been investigating
that same company which Biden had arranged his son Hunter onto the board of. Biden's conflict of interest was so obvious that
Trump certainly believed he was onto something. Joe Biden, and media sympathetic to his claims, has predictably tried to cloud the
issue,
but the corruption is too obvious not to notice. This should, and may, have ended Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid.
What happened in Ukraine was old-timey Smash & Grab , a reckless attack right on Russia's western border. Joe Biden
arrived to grab as much loot from Ukraine's gas sector as he possibly could through a cut-out, his son. Biden used his leverage over
Ukraine's international "loan guarantees" (which is money the coup leaders receive but don't have to pay back) to finance their new
illegitimate junta.
Biden's own quid pro quo , in his own words: "I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting
the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." This is exactly the type of crime they now accuse Trump of perpetrating with his
telephone. The hypocrisy is comical.
The Obama Administration's corruption, along with a bloody war and thirteen-thousand corpses, is what a real crime looks like.
Hold onto that picture.
Democrats were allegedly the good guys vis a vis Ukraine?
Weren't these international war crimes breaching the UN Charter, which demands exclusively peaceful actions between states,
Article II?
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security,
and justice, are not endangered.
-- United Nations Charter, a ratified Treaty, and the "Supreme Law of the Land"
Launching a proxy war on nuclear-armed Russia was a sane foreign policy? Sending even more arms to escalate that conflict was
allegedly such a glorious idea that any delay in weapons shipments becomes an impeachable offense?
This unserious charge leveled against Donald Trump distracts from all of his obvious corruption. Trump's
Emoluments violations have been impeachable for years, but
the Democrats weren't interested. Do Democrats long to cash in on the Office of the Presidency next time?
Multiple deaths of refugee children in US federal
custody at the southern border could be considered murders linked directly to official policies of harsh treatment and deliberate
neglect. Are Democrats afraid of exposing Obama's own
caging of immigrant children?
This current Ukrainegate impeachment charade appears to be motivated only by blind partisanship and the desire to insulate
corrupt insiders like Joe Biden from any scrutiny of their actions. The farce has gone so over-the-top that even as Democratic partisan
media heralded the testimony of Trump's Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, Donald Trump's allies have already used portions of
her testimony as a video advertisement for his reelection!
Are Democrats trying to hurt or to help Trump's reelection?
Joe Giambrone has written for WhoWhatWhy, Foreign Policy Journal, International Policy Digest, Counterpunch, GlobalResearch,
OpEdNews, and his fabulous new novel is DEMIGODS. Read
other articles by Joe .
Thus, a seventh reason is that major European countries, such as
Italy , have long wearied of the Crimea sanctions. One can only wonder how much more
healthy European economies might be today, including that of economic juggernaut
Germany , if Europe chose to drop these policies of deleterious economic distortion.
As an eighth reason, one can reasonably say that these hostile sanction policies are badly
dividing NATO, but also preventing the Alliance from acting against palpable security
threats, including terrorism and immigration-related to failed states on its periphery.
Then, a ninth reason is that the continuing festering of tensions over Crimea could, by
way of misperception, lead to an actual U.S.-Russia military
confrontation , which might well reach the nuclear level of conflict in short order.
As a tenth and most important point, one could very reasonably hope that Moscow would be
willing to compensate Kyiv for letting the peninsula go finally. This could take many forms,
ranging from favorable gas deals to halting aid to rebels in East Ukraine to allowing Ukraine
to join NATO without applying counter-measures.
Thus, American diplomats should perhaps turn their attention away from reciting tiresome
talking points and stirring up old Cold War tensions to actually negotiating a "grand
bargain" to set European security on a much more positive course. Such a bargain
is not that far-fetched, actually.
For now, Ukrainians and others in southeast Europe may be less worried about Washington's
impeachment spectacle and more about whether the
heat will remain on through this winter. Too bad that American LNG cannot be offloaded at
Odessa since the Turks long ago ruled that such vessels could not safely pass through the
Bosporus. In any case with U.S.-Turkish relations at nearly an all-time low, that decision is
not likely to be reversed any time soon. Still, American oilmen could be
pleased to see U.S. oil flowing into Ukraine for the first time -- though it's far from
clear that's either economically efficient or environmentally sound. Perhaps if President
Trump ends the war in Afghanistan, as promised, some of the dozens of billions saved could be
set aside for Kyiv to build even more wind turbines.
There is that small problem that this aid
seems to increase the very corruption it has been allocated to reduce. To hear American
diplomats and "Ukraine experts" wax eloquent on the supposedly grave threat to American
national security interests in Ukraine these days, it seems they will not be satisfied until
they've seen a video of American-made anti-tank missiles and sniper rifles delivering up
large numbers of casualties against Russian regulars in eastern Ukraine.
Fortunately, most Ukrainians are wiser and more realistic. They know that such battlefield
"successes" would likely be followed by devastating Russian air and missile attacks against
Ukraine. They also know well by now that neither Americans nor other Europeans are about to
come and save them from that sad fate.
Lyle J. Goldstein is Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute
(CMSI) at the United States Naval War College in Newport, RI. In addition to Chinese, he also
speaks Russian and he is also an affiliate of the new Russia Maritime Studies Institute
(RMSI) at Naval War College. You can reach him at [email protected] . The opinions in his columns are entirely
his own and do not reflect the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of
the U.S. government.
With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up
especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate
the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and
presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist
revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode. A recent
piece from David Ignatius is a good place to begin to highlight the intensification. In a
recent article (People died while Trump played games with Ukraine's military aid, Washington
Post, November 13, 2019,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/people-died-while-trump-played-games-with-ukraines-military-aid/2019/11/12/a4cc18a6-0598-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html
), Ignatius charges Trump with the responsibility for the continuation of the Donbass civil war
and its casualties for withholding military aid to Kyiv. This is apparently a move by the
Democratic establishment to escalate the confrontation with the White House by adding to the
charge that Trump held up financial assistance to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelenskiy renewed Ukraine's investigation of the Bidens' corrupt activities the charge that
Trump also held military assistance hostage in return for an investigation of the Bidens.
Unfortunately, Ignatuis's 'narrative' falls flat on its face when it is understood, as former
US National Security Council Europe-Eurasia chief Fiona Hill testified to Congress in the
impeachment hearings that the hold up was part of a general delay caused by a broad policy
review conducted by the incoming Trump administration ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
, pp. 227-8).
Ignatius writes that while Trump fiddles, Ukraine burns, that Ukrainians died while, if not
because Trump withheld military aid to Kyiv:
"As Ukrainians were struggling with near-daily shellfire, Trump appeared to treat military
aid appropriated by Congress as a personal political tool." "Trump's Ukraine machinations have
yielded something like what we've seen in these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power
and a corresponding increase in Russia's military and diplomatic leverage." (Here he cites
Syria specifically.) "Russian diplomatic gains have also been evident in Ukraine. While Trump's
lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was flitting around the country disparaging U.S. diplomats, Moscow
was seeking a deal to stabilize Ukraine on favorable terms. The Russians are now discussing an
agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the man Trump importuned in his
infamous July 25 phone call for a 'favor' in investigating his political rivals in return for
military help." Ignatius hits this point again: "Zelensky has pressed ahead with his peace
efforts, and Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces have now disengaged at Zolote and two other
crossing points."
Ignatius blames several deaths on Trump's weapons' supply delay, as he tries to make the
debate over Ukraine policy, as he states explicitly, "more visceral" -- that is, emotional --
rather than rational. To achieve this effect, he closes his article with supposed dramatic
effect: "Here are some details from recent OSCE cease-fire monitoring reports: On Oct. 5, a man
and a woman died after a grenade exploded in their apartment in Kurakhove; on Oct. 24, a man
was injured by shrapnel near Luhansk; on Nov. 1, a man was injured by shelling in Spartak. As
you watch the impeachment hearings, remember this basic fact: While Trump was playing politics
on Ukraine, people who depended on U.S. military aid were getting killed and wounded." Like
Canadian Professor Paul Robinson, when I read this I immediately smelled a rat, but Prof.
Robinson beat me to the punch in exposing this falsehood. As it turns out, these casualties of
the civil war are all almost certainly to have been inflicted by the pro-Kyiv Madian forces and
not by the separatists. In the case of the grenade exploding in the apartment, neither of the
warring sides appears to be responsible, since a criminal was opened in the matter, suggesting,
no one fired or threw the grenade into the apartment, since a criminal case was opened. In all
cases, Ignatius's casualties occurred in areas controlled by the rebels, suggesting the
Ukrainian government forces fired on rebel territory, inflicting the casualties ( https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/trump-is-killing-ukrainians/
). Whatever the case, Ignatius would have no way of knowing otherwise, but he wrote so as to
imply the rebels and, of course, Russia and its agent Trump are to blame. He likely assumed and
hoped the rebels and thus Russia and Trump 'were responsible', while failing to look deeper
into the OSCE report in the way Prof. Robinson studiously has. Nevertheless, Ignatius elsewhere
in the piece provides detailed OSCE statistics on ceasefire violations from such reports, but
somehow he missed the details on the locations of the casualties and under which side's control
they are under.
The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's
delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to
send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil
war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we
have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to
distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes,
especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the
domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics,
and there are many such aspects.
Ignatius also implies that the Russian-backed Donbass separatists are the attackers, even
though it was Kyiv which declared and started the civil war, refusing to negotiate with the
separatists. The separatists have seceded and are preventing the Ukrainian government's forces
from seizing their breakaway regions and forcing them back into the Ukrainian fold without any
concessions. But Ignatius says: "Zelensky announced Oct. 1 that he had agreed to Russian calls
to implement a formula proposed in 2016 by then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
that, in Zelensky's version, would provide withdrawal of Russian proxy forces followed by
elections in the separatist areas of the east." There is no 'Zelensky version' of the
Steinmeier plan. There is only the Steinmeier plan, which seeks to get both sides to withdraw
forces from the front line, not just 'Russian proxy forces.'
Oddly, Ignatius uses terms such as "Russian-backed forces" and "Russian proxy forces." He
never mentions the once falsely claimed tens of thousands of Russian troops occupying Ukraine.
What happened, Mr Ignatius? Tens of thousands turned out to be a few thousand who temporarily
intervened twice to save the Donbass rebels from encirclement and destruction.
Ignatius is at wit's end over Trump's lack of diplomatic action in the peace negotiations
and Russian "diplomatic gains," noting: "How is the United States shaping events as Ukraine is
rebalanced? America isn't really a player. Trump said in September while meeting Zelensky in
New York: 'I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your
problem.'" Also: "Trump's Ukraine machinations have yielded something like what we've seen in
these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power and a corresponding increase in Russia's
military and diplomatic leverage." However, it was the Barack Obama administration that: helped
spark the entire crisis with its revolution-promotion policies, stayed away from the talks
between eventually overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition
sponsored by the EU and Russia leading to the 20 February 2014 agreement that could have
averted all that followed (including the Donbass civil war), lied about who shot at protesters
on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 sparking the revolution and the agreement's burial, did
nothing to stop the new Maidan regime from starting the civil war, and did not participate in
the Minsk peace process. This is the reason America is not a player in the peace process, and
Russia and the EU, which have been participants from the beginning, are. Any US role under the
Trump administration in peace talks that involve Putin would be called by the likes of Ignatius
as appeasement of, and capitulation to the dictator Putin by his agent and colluder Trump.
Meaningful participation by Washington is now impossible given 'Russiagate' and 'Ukrainegate'.
While I am no admirer of President Trump or his foreign policy, as i have written several
times, There is little to no reason to place the onus for the American absence from diplomatic
action surrounding Ukraine on Trump's shoulders.
President Zelenskiy's 'critics' have descended on key front line sectors to prevent the
drawback of Ukrainian armed forces and ultranationalist-dominated 'volunteer battalions. These
radicals are so dangerous that Zelenskiy was forced a few weeks ago to visit them and appeal to
them to support his attempt to broker peace in Donbass. Afterwards, they issued a video
refusing to compromise and threatening Zelenskiy in an undefined way if he continued with his
peace efforts.
It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no
reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States
itself. The inevitable confusion and apathy is particularly dangerous in a country with the
enormous responsibility of being the leader of the democratic community of states the U.S.
purports itself to be. It will allow political leaders with strong media support to manipulate
reality and lead the country down a dark alley from which there is no return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org . Dr. Hahn's
most recent book is Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . He
has authored three previous, well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's
Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above:
Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000
(Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that Biden has been revealed as an incredibly corrupt sleazebag. That is, what Trump wanted
investigated, the Bidens scooping up cash (our cash ultimately, since we gave it to Ukraine) in the corrupt Ukraine. How they
think all the attention will be focused on Trump asking Zelensky to look into these shameful payoffs and not the payoffs themselves,
is beyond me.
Meddling in the 2016 US presidential election by Ukrainian politicians and government
agencies did indeed happen. No amount of denial is going to change that.
By Yasha Levine ####
Vis Fiona Hill (as ME & Mark referenced earlier), does she really think everyone else
is stupid?
Anyway, it's not what the partisan media reports that matters but what the American voter
thinks. If it's 'A pox on both your houses', then there will be plenty more shocks to the
body politik to come and hopefully, real change.
Thus the fierce struggle for regulation over the internet, and the flap about 'fake news' and
how critical it is that you cede control over what you can see so that you can be 'protected'
– it's all 'for your own safety'. A narrative can really only be driven home when the
audience is not exposed to conflicting stories or evidence which does not fit the
establishment tale.
"... Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races. ..."
"... 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'" ..."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has not been shy about
his disdain for the mainstream media. But the
Democratic presidential hopeful
has rarely, if ever, articulated it as bluntly as he did in an interview that aired on
MSNBC 's "
The Rachel Maddow Show " on Friday night. Sanders
called out the network for its corporate character in a novel exchange with host
Rachel Maddow .
"The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate
media as well," Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.
Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president. "What's the solution to corporate
media?" she asked.
"We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television," Sanders
answered. Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived
sympathies of many of its political talk shows.
Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty
more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.
He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets
to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives. "MSNBC is owned by who?" Sanders asked. "Comcast, our
overlords," Maddow responded with a chuckle.
"All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?" Sanders said. "And I think the American people
are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap
opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'"
The list contains some (but not all) of the key participants of the 2014 coup d'état
against President Yanukovich. There are 13 names in the list: MPs Serhiy Leshchenko, Mustafa
Nayem, Svitlana Zalishchuk, Serhiy Berezenko, Serhiy Pashynsky; ex-Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk; ex-Head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Hontareva; ex-First Deputy of the
National Security and Defense Council Oleg Hladkovsky; judge of the Constitutional Court of
Ukraine Makar Pasenyuk; candidate for presidency Anatoly Hrytsenko; singer Svyatoslav Vakarchuk;
journalist Dmytro Hordon and ex-Head of the Presidential Administration Borys Lozhkin.
Pashynsky was involved in Snipergate. Yatsenyuk was the marionette chosen by Nuland to head
the Provisional government after Yanukovich will be overthrown.
Almost all of these people from the list were involved in various sort of scandals during
the last five years. Particularly, Oleg Hladkovsky was recently dismissed from his post due to
the corruption scandal in the defense sphere. Serhiy Leshchenko became known for the purchase
of the flat for $275,253 and the number of information attacks at well-known politicians and
businessmen. Serhy Pashynsky was tied to the hostile takeover of a confectionary factory in
Zhytomyr.
In its turn, the U.S. Department of State stated that the
words of Lutsenko are not true and aims to tarnish the reputation of Ambassador
Yovanovitch. Thus, there are certain concerns that the actual list might be fake.
Dr Kyle Kopko , an associate professor of political science and director of the honours and
pre-law programmes at Elizabethtown College, noted that neither Taylor nor Kent's testimonies
had significantly changed the views of Congress or the public on the impeachment proceedings,
but it could change as the hearings continue:
"I think, at the very least, this is laying the groundwork to show that the president acted
with a political motivation to harm one of his potential campaign rivals", he said.
Dr Kopko also pointed out that there's still not enough evidence to get the impeachment
through.
"...I'm not convinced, yet, that there is enough evidence to result in a conviction in the
Senate", he explained.
"It may be the case that Democrats are using this as a means of damaging President Trump's
credibility as a leader going into the 2020 election, and I see that as being the most likely
outcome where they are able to severely damage his candidacy and reduce his likelihood of
re-election", he concluded.
The central impeachment mantra seems to be "Russian aggression." Look
how many times the witnesses mention this as their central motivation to countermand the
directions of their boss, the commander in chief. But meanwhile, war plans for Iran continue
with the support of both parties. Watch today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The House is holding its second public hearing with former US envoy
to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch centring around her ouster which, according to her, is pertinent
to the impeachment probe against Trump. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
flatly denied allegations that she circulated a list of potential corruption targets in Ukraine
that the United States did not want prosecuted, according to testimony at the opening of
hearings in the House impeachment probe of President Donald Trump on Friday.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a do not prosecute list
was a fabrication", Yovanovitch said. "Mr Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general
who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I did not tell Mr
Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute. Instead I
advocated the US position that rule of law should prevail."
US President Donald Trump in a series of tweets on Friday
criticised former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch's performance while she was
testifying in the impeachment hearing against him. He defended his decision to replace
Yovanovitch - appointed by his predecessor Barak Obama - as the US ambassador to Ukraine, where
she served from August 2016 until May 2019.
....They call it "serving at the pleasure of the President." The U.S. now has a very
strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is
called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for
Ukraine than O.
During Friday's Democrat-led impeachment inquiry hearing, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath that she did not give former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko a "do not prosecute list" in 2017. Yovanovitch also doubled-down on
left-wing disinformation saying that Lutsenko "acknowledged that the list never existed" in
April.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a "Do Not Prosecute" list
was a fabrication,"
Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee . "Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian
prosecutor general who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I
did not tell Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not
prosecute."
"That is such a lie," Glenn Beck said on Friday's show. "She should be held for
perjury."
During a three-part BlazeTV exposé on the Democrats' corruption in Ukraine, Glenn
debunked what he called "the most misleading fabrication I've ever seen by the mainstream
media."
Earlier this year, award-winning investigative journalist John
Solomon reported Lutsenko's claim that then-Ambassador Yovanovitch gave him a list of
"people whom we should not prosecute" during a meeting in 2016. Shortly after Solomon's article
was released, several news sources, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal,
reported that Lutsenko retracted his statement.
When Lutsenko said Yovanovitch "gave" him a list, he did not mean she actually handed him
anything in writing, but verbally conveyed the names of people he shouldn't prosecute.
"They never mentioned the fact that it was verbally dictated and he wrote the list down
himself -- are you kidding me?" Glenn exclaimed. "This is how the media is fact-checking and
debunking. They are playing with our republic and Ukraine's republic. They are planting
dynamite all around everything that we hold dear. How do they sleep at night? Everyone that
reads their stories actually thinks that there was a retraction of one of the most damning
parts of this entire case."
If you like what you see, use promo code GB20OFF to get $20 off a full year of BlazeTV . With a BlazeTV subscription, you're not just paying to watch
great pro-free speech, pro-America TV. Your subscription funds the intensive investigations
that let BlazeTV tell the stories
the liberal media wants to keep in the dark, giving you the unvarnished truth, showing you what
the media doesn't want you to see.
Read More
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV's John Solomon in an interview that
aired Wednesday that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gave him a do not prosecute
list during their first meeting.
"Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave
me a list of people whom we should not prosecute," Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told
Hill.TV last week.
"My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president
nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,"
he continued.
The State Department called Lutsenko's claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, "an
outright fabrication."
"We have seen reports of the allegations," a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. "The
United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General's Office
(PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in
the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for
genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary
responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive
projects."
Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.
Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that "the situation was
actually rather strange" and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but "never
received."
"At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance
worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue," he said. " At that
time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil
servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption
policy."
"Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that
we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy
did not require our legal assessment of these facts," he said. "The situation was actually
rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor
general's office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied
there was no problem."
"The portion of the funds namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen
for the recipient Prosecutor General's office. But we have never received it," he said.
Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents
Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as
ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.
... More freedom in Ukraine (Thanks Obama):
"UKRAINIAN courts were today condemned for upholding a ban on the only newspaper opposing the
country's "oligarch-nazi regime."
"Founded in 1897, Rabochaya Gazeta was banned earlier this year under Ukraine's
reactionary anti-communist laws after it published articles quoting Karl Marx.
"The newspaper actively opposed the glorification of nazi war-criminals by the Ukrainian
government. It demanded an end to the civil war launched by Kiev in the Donbass after the
2014 military coup and the seizure of power by the country's neo-nazis, oligarchs and
organised criminals.
"The Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU) warned that the political course of the new
government had not changed, with a continued hatred of the newspaper for "telling the truth
to its readers."
"It said the ban was the precursor for legislation that would "completely destroy freedom
of speech and introduce total censorship of the media."
"... A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine. ..."
"... Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... The Associated Press contributed to this report. ..."
Rudy Giuliani, the personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, eyed business deals in Ukraine as he sought
inquires into allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, according
to a report released Wednesday.
The
New York Times
said Giuliani begin negotiations with Yuri Lutsenko, Ukraine's leading prosecutor at the
time, to take him and the European country's Justice Ministry as clients earlier this year. According to the
Times
, Lutsenko was expected to compensate Giuliani and lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing $200,000
to "advise on Ukrainian claims for the recovery of sums of money in various financial institutions outside Ukraine."
Further, the newspaper reported that Ukraine's Justice Ministry and the Republic of Ukraine were supposed to pay
Giuliani's company $300,000. The deal was signed by the former New York City mayor, but not the Ukraine justice
minister.
In March, the Justice Ministry reportedly appeared to have negotiated an agreement to use the services of diGenova
and Toensing where the General Prosecutor's office, headed up by Lutsenko, but would pay $300,000 to Giuliani's firm.
Responding to allegations brought forth by the
Times
, Giuliani acknowledged that he weighed doing
business with Ukraine's government, but ultimately opted against the move. "I thought that would be too complicated,"
he told the
Times
, before adding: "I never received a penny." Ukraine's Justice Ministry confirmed to the
newspaper that it has never entered into any business agreements with the Trump lawyer.
The
Times'
report comes as federal prosecutors are
slated to meet with executives from Naftogaz -- the Ukraine energy giant at the center of a federal investigation
into Giuliani and two Soviet-born associates' dealings.
A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is
scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas
division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine.
Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the
business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a
foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the
investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Giuliani's close associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were arrested last month at an airport outside
Washington while trying to board a flight to Europe with one-way tickets. They were later indicted by federal
prosecutors on charges of conspiracy, making false statements, and falsification of records.
Following an inquiry from The Associated Press, Favorov lawyer Lanny Breuer confirmed his client is set to meet
with prosecutors.
"The Department of Justice has requested an interview,"
Breuer said. "He has agreed and will voluntarily sit down with the government attorneys. At this time, it would
not be appropriate to comment further."
Breuer declined to say when or where Favorov, who has dual
U.S.-Russian citizenship and lives in Ukraine, will be meeting with prosecutors.
Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in
the Southern District of New York, declined to comment.
According to a federal indictment filed last month, Parnas
and Fruman are alleged to have been key players in Giuliani's efforts earlier this year to spur the Ukrainian
government to launch an investigation of Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
"... "There is also a lot of hypocrisy," stated DiStefano, "People who claim that they are for the people -- that they are for the middle class -- which has been Joe Biden's mantra, and yet there is deal after deal in which companies are attempting to enrich themselves and members of the Biden family, and it has often been a way to open the door with the senator, [and] later vice president by doing something to support his brothers." ..."
"... DiStefano determined, "Obviously the question should be asked, 'What were the Bidens' relations in the Ukraine? What were they doing? What were they up to? Who was benefiting from that? Did it affect U.S. policy?'" ..."
Investigating the nature of Joe Biden's and Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine -- particularly with respect to energy
company Burisma -- is a legitimate endeavor, determined Joseph N. DiStefano, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer and Nation
columnist, offering his remarks in a Tuesday interview on SiriusXM's Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour
and Joel Pollak.
DiStefano described a series of courtships from businesses targeting Joe Biden's family members, drawing on his latest Nation
column entitled, " Joe Biden's Friends and Backers Come Out on Top -- at the Expense of the Middle Class."
Joe Biden has been a beneficiary of "legal graft" via the "Delaware Way," DiStefano said -- a term defined as "politicians doing
favors for well-connected business owners in exchange for contributions after the fact."
"We go where the facts lead, DiStefano said. "In the case of the Bidens, they've been leading for a very long time. If you go
back to the early 1970s, ever since Joe Biden's been elected to the Senate, there has been a pretty unremitting series of business
transactions involving members of his family and companies that were interested for a large variety of reasons in getting access."
DiStefano recalled, "[Joe Biden] himself complained -- you might call it gaslighting, but he complained -- that his brother at
the age of 23 and his business partners were granted business loans by banks in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware -- loans that
were not paid -- to open
a discotheque right up the road from Wilmington."
DiStefano continued, "When it came time to pay those loans, the banks liened on Joe Biden, he complained to the Wilmington
News Journal -- that paper where I worked years ago -- at that time, and ever since then it's been just a series of his brothers
and his sons doing business with folks who came to them because they were Bidens, because Joe Biden was initially on the Banking
Committee and then a representative of the very powerful credit card banks that developed in Delaware, and eventually on the Judiciary
Committee."
"Of course, this is a very old American tradition," said DiStefano. "You can go back to Ben Franklin, and how he was pleased
to become Secretary of the Province of Pennsylvania, because it enabled him to take over the provincial printing business. His
son was ultimately governor of New Jersey, and there's an awful lot of that in American history.
Reviewing Joe Biden's political history reveals a pattern of businesses attempting to procure political influence via financial
relationships with Biden's brothers and sons, explained DiStefano.
"There is also a lot of hypocrisy," stated DiStefano, "People who claim that they are for the people -- that they are for
the middle class -- which has been Joe Biden's mantra, and yet there is deal after deal in which companies are attempting to enrich
themselves and members of the Biden family, and it has often been a way to open the door with the senator, [and] later vice president
by doing something to support his brothers."
DiStefano remarked, "Politics is very, very local, and the Bidens live in a very nice section of Delaware. The richest section
of Delaware -- eventually -- in Greenville. They went to some of the best schools, first in the state, and then in the country."
DiStefano went on, "Politics is very local here [in Delaware]. You can keep getting elected while being a person of modest means
if you make the networks, if you make the connections, if you do the work, if you are respected."
"There are many people in Delaware who respect Joe Biden for all those things, but it wasn't enough, because from the very beginning,
[Joe Biden was] building networks outside the state," added DiStefano. "There are people who credit or blame [Joe Biden] with corrupting
the [political] process [in Delaware] to the extent that a lot of out-of-state money came in and made him senator, and others senator
and governor after him. It really helped cement to the dominance of the Delaware Democratic Party."
"Delaware is one of those states, like Vermont, that consistently elects Democrats in recent years. Joe Biden and the money machine
he put together is a large part of that," DiStefano said. "It is a fact that he had those networks and he raised that money, and
there were a lot of trade-offs that happened as a result."
DiStefano continued, "One of the most obvious [trade-offs] was support that [Joe Biden] at first uniquely, and then very importantly
gave to the credit card banks in Delaware, in the fights that happened in Congress all through the 1970s, 80s, and 90s over just
how much power should these institutions have when a person can't pay their bills [and] what is protected and what it exposed to
the mercies of the creditors."
"Joe Biden was very consistently on the side of the credit card banks in limiting the assets that one could protect from bankruptcy,"
noted DiStefano.
Joe Biden was dubbed, "the Senator from MBNA" in 1998 by the American Spectator , recalled DiStefano.
Mansour and Pollak invited DiStefano's explanation of how Delaware came to be the home state of many national credit card companies.
"This came about when the Democrats controlled Washington back in late 1970s, after they had gotten Nixon out of the way and believed
that they would be the majority party indefinitely -- before Reagan put an end to that -- there was a period in which there was very
high inflation in this country and Democrats did not know what to do," recalled DiStefano.
DiStefano went on, "The Supreme Court and the Congress and President [Jimmy Carter] basically agreed to allow banks to export
interest rates [across state lines]. For many years, states could limit interest rates [and] how much you could charge on a loan.
The credit card industry was one of the first really national lending business, and there was an agreement in Congress -- after a
particular Supreme Court decision involving a bank in Omaha -- that it would now be possible for bank in a state with really liberalized
lending laws to export those lending laws to another state."
"Delaware was one of the very first states to take advantage of that," added DiStefano. " Now, by that point, [Joe Biden] was
in the U.S. Senate. He was not part of the initial bipartisan group in Delaware who rushed to make this happen. He had been on the
Senate Banking Committee during the debates and was on the conference committee that basically passed the bill that made all this
possible. What he did after that was to be very accommodating from Washington of the banks that immediately flocked to Delaware."
DiStefano explained, "Delaware got this early. Delaware understood that if they got rid of their usury law, if they got rid of
their consumer protections, if they reduced bank taxes to the point where they were actually regressive -- the more money you make
as a Delaware bank, the lower your tax rate is -- then the result was that the largest credit card companies reincorporated their
businesses in Delaware and began to lend from there."
Joe Biden assisted Republicans in blocking left-wing Democrats' efforts to increase state controls over the credit card industry,
noted DiStefano.
"That is what a lot of the liberals hold against Joe Biden," DiStefano said of the former vice president's opposition to increasing
government regulations over credit card companies' operations.
"[Joe Biden] really defended the interest of a very powerful group in his state, but you ought to consider that that was a lot
of jobs," added DiStefano. "That was literally tens of thousands of jobs at a time when the Dupont company was cutting back, the
auto plants were closing down, the oil refinery along the river was closing, and here were the banks, that's what they had, and that's
who gave Joe Biden money, and that is who his constituents, you know, were calling in [about] and saying, 'We need these jobs,' and
he was defending those jobs in Congress."
Joe Biden moved politically leftward after joining Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a vice presidential nominee, said DiStefano,
"[Joe Biden] was now on a national platform and he needed to run to the left, and that's where he moved."
"Joe Biden backed Obama's [and the] Democrats' attempt to socialize the [private lending industry], and make it so that anybody
who wants a loan for college can get one. no matter that it's a bad college program that doesn't help people get jobs, no matter
that it's a bad borrower who's not going to pay their loan," DiStefano explained. "That's why student lending is so expensive in
this country."
Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), a private equity firm founded by Hunter Biden,
procured
$1.5 billion in financing from the state-run Bank of China days after then-Vice President Joe Biden traveled to China as part
of an official extended trip to Asia.
DiStefano recalled BHR's involved in
purchasing "politically sensitive" assets and companies, including dual-use technology with military applications developed by
automotive parts manufacturer Henniges Automotive.
"They ended up buying the biggest copper and cobalt mine in Africa," said DiStefano of BHR's global acquisition. "They bought
a company in Detroit that did a lot of controls for vehicles, including military vehicles. They bought into a company in China hat
ended up designing a lot of technology used in the imprisonment of the Uighur population."
DiStefano added, "There are examples of companies that were close to the Bidens that did not make company, and one of those is
Hill International, a company in Philadelphia run by -- long ago -- a former felon that hired one of the Biden brothers as a vice
president of a group that was supposed to build housing in Iraq."
DiStefano went on, "That housing never got built, because the Obama administration policies in Iraq turned to, really, abandoning
a part of the country for a period of time, allowing ISIS to move in, and the plan to build all this housing was canceled. That same
company had a deal to build community colleges across Libya, and that plan got blown up when the [Obama] administration, against
the advice of many of our allies, decided to go in and blow up the Qaddafi government, leading to another period of anarchy and more
influence by ISIS. That company lost money in both of those cases, and they had very actively courted the Biden family."
Mansour invited DiStefano's comments on Biden's conflicts of interest given his former role as vice president and his son's foreign
businesses dealings.
"What would you do?" asked DiStefano. "I have six children, and a bunch of them have worked and had internships and then jobs
in corporate America, and I always tell them the same thing. I say, 'Don't tell me anything that's going on at the company you're
working at. As much as I'd love to know, and as a business reporter, I'm probably very interested, but don't tell me anything that
hasn't been published by your investor relations department or hasn't been [publicly disclosed] by the company, because you're going
to be working a lot longer than I have, and I don't want to put you in that position where you have a conflict of interest,' and
they understand that."
DiStefano added, "When my wife was a bank officer and I was a labor organizer -- way, way, way back, over 30 years ago, before
I was a reporter -- she had some sensitive information on companies I was very interested in, and she would not tell me. That's what
honorable people do. They separate it. They don't put themselves and their family members in these positions where there [are] conflicts
of interest."
"What we don't hear is denouncement [from Joe Biden]," observed DiStefano. "We hear the general abstract statement, 'I will never
put anybody in that position,' but then you see the fact of a deal in Ukraine right as the U.S. is backing Ukraine, and no apparent
attempt by the then-vice president to say, 'Well, don't do that. You shouldn't do that. I wish he wouldn't do that.' It's just, 'It's
all okay. It's my son, and what he does, I'm sure, is right,' and I just think that's an extra step that many of us try very hard
to avoid in our personal and business lives, and why should he not be setting an example?"
Mansour asked DiStefano about the President Donald Trump's inquiries into corruption in Ukraine, including possible corruption
on the part of Joe and Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma.
DiStefano determined, "Obviously the question should be asked, 'What were the Bidens' relations in the Ukraine? What were
they doing? What were they up to? Who was benefiting from that? Did it affect U.S. policy?'"
"What is [Hunter Biden] doing going on the board of an oil company that can obviously benefit if the U.S. backs Ukraine," asked
DiStefano.
"... Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. ..."
"... Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics ..."
"... "The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision." ..."
"... Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. ..."
"... To a great degree American foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions inherited from Old Europe. ..."
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins.
Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being unreasonable -- those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to
boost Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort.
Jokes aside, however, I can only imagine how SVR
and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many "free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a
free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't
remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it
had been an American Admiral. I had no luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration.
It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose
to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe"
to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth
called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant
but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy
agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the
respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the
crazy banner. Or, to put it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an outside
observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an extent American foreign policy has been
hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign policy has been uniformly deleterious.
And that from a long way back and no matter whether those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many
Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes
with neighbors.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of the United States - because that is
a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American
foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions
inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New World, with all its power and might,
steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen for half a century and more. But there
was a price few noticed. The New World might have stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a
most destructive freight.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
I wrote what follows before reading Andrei's response to EO, but do not see much reason to change what I had written.
When in 1988 I ended up working at BBC Radio 'Analysis' programme because it was impossible to interest any of my old television
colleagues in the idea that one might go to Moscow and talk to some of the people involved in the Gorbachev 'new thinking', my
editor, Caroline Anstey, was an erstwhile aide to Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister.
As a result of his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, she had a fascinating anecdote about what one of his fellow
members, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, said about another, Zbigniew Brzezinski: that he could never work out which
of his country's two traditional enemies his Polish colleague hated most.
Almost a generation after hearing her say this, in December 2013, I read an article Brzezinski published in the 'Financial
Times, headlined 'Russia, like Ukraine, will become a real democracy.'
Unfortunately, it is behind a subscription wall, but it clearly expresses its author's fundamental belief that after all those
years of giving Russia the 'spinach' treatment -- to use Victoria Nuland's term -- it would finally 'knuckle under', and become
a quiescent satellite of the West.
An ironic sidelight on this is provided in a recent article by a lady called Anna Mahjar-Barducci on the 'MEMRI' site -- which
actually has some very useful material on matters to do with Russia for those of us with no knowledge of the language -- headlined
'Contemporary Russian Thinkers Series -- Part I -- Renowned Russian Academic Sergey Karaganov On Russia And Democracy.'
Its subject, who I remember well from the days when he was very much one of the 'new thinkers', linked to it on his own website,
clearly pleased at what he saw as an accurate and informed discussion of his ideas.
There is an obvious risk of succumbing to facetiousness, but sometimes what one thinks are essential features of an argument
can be best brought out at the risk of caricaturing it.
It seems to me that some of the central themes of Karaganov's writing over the past few years -- doubly interesting, because
his attacks on conventional Western orthodoxies are very far from silly, and because he is a kind of 'panjandrum' of a significant
section of the Russian foreign policy élite -- may be illuminated in this way.
So, attempting to link his Russian concerns to British and American ones, some central contentions of his writings might be
put as follows:
'"Government of the people, by the people, for the people' looked a lovely idea, back in 1989. But if in practice "by the people"
means a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, how can it be "for the people?"
'Moreover, it turned out that our "deplorables" were always right, against us 'intellectuals', in grasping that, with "Russophobes"
running Western policy, a "real democracy" would simply guarantee that we remained as impotent and humiliated as people like Brzezinski
clearly always wanted us to be.
'Our past, and our future, both in terms of alliances and appropriate social and political systems, are actually "Eurasian":
a 'hybrid' state, whose potential greatest advantage actually should be seen as successfully synthesising different inheritances.
'As the need for this kind of synthesis is a normal condition, with which most peoples have to reckon, this gives us a very
real potential advantage over people in the West, who, like the communists against whom I rebelled, believe that there is one
path along which all of humanity must -- and can -- go.'
At the risk of over-interpreting, I might add the following conclusion:
'Of course, precisely what this analysis does not mean is that we are anti-European -- simply that we cannot simply come to
Europe, Europe come some way to meet us.
'Given time, Helmut Schmidt's fellow countrymen, as also de Gaulle's, may very well realise that their future does not lie
in an alliance with a coalition of people like Brzezinski and traditional "Russophobes" from the "Anglosphere".
'And likewise, it does not lie with the kind of messianic universalist "liberalism" -- and, in relation to some of the SJC
and LGBT obsessions, one might say "liberalism gone bonkers" -- which Putin criticized in his interview with the "Financial Times"
back in June.
An obvious possibility implicit in the argument is that, if indeed the continental Europeans see sense, then the coalition
of traditional 'Anglophobes' and the 'insulted and injured' or the 'borderlands' may find itself marginalized, and indeed, on
the 'dustbin of history' to which Trotsky once referred.
Of course, I have no claims to be a Russianist, and my reading of Karaganov may be quite wrong.
But I do strongly believe that very superficial readings of what was happening when I was working in the 'Analysis' office,
back in 1988-9, have done an immense disservice alike to Britain and the United States.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
David, Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. But the events of two days ago with Putin and Lavrov being personally
present at the unveiling of the monument to Evgenii Primakov in a front of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaks, in fact
screams, volumes. You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means that the West "lost"
(quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose) Russia and it can be "thankful" for that to a so called Russia
Studies field in the West which was primarily shaped and then turned into the wasteland, in large part thanks to influx of East
European "scholars" and some "Russian" dissidents which achieved their objectives by drawing a caricature. They succeeded and
Russia had it with the West.
DH, appreciate your comment. Haven't read the MEMRI paper yet. Scanned the first page though.
Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. ... You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as
I type this and it means that the West "lost" (quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose)
Well, two things sticked out for me during Tumps reelection campain.
1) on the surface he stated, he wanted closer relations to Russia. Looked at more closely, as should be expected, maybe. They
were ambigous. If I may paraphrase it colloguially: I meet them and, believe me, if I don't get that beautiful deal, i'll be out
of the door the next second.
2) he promised to be enigmatic, compared to earlier American administrations. In other words, hard to read or to predict. Guess
one better is as dealmaker. But in the larger intelligence field? Enigmatic may well be a commonplace. No?
Otherwise, Andrei, I would appreciate your further elaboration on Karaganov as opportunist.
Andrei: Strzok and Pientka come from Galicia -- the westernmost portion of what is now Ukraine -- that was acquired by Empress
Maria Theresa in the mid - 18th century.
I have been curious about precisely where both Srzok and Pientka came from, but have not had time to do any serious searches.
What is the actual evidence that they have Galician origins?
And, if they do, what are these?
I would of course automatically tend to assume that Polish names mean that their origins are Polish.
But then, if this is so, why are they enthusiastically collaborating with 'Banderista' Ukrainians?
It has long been a belief of mine that one of Stalin's great mistakes was to attempt to incorporate Galicia into the empire
he was creating.
Had he returned it to Poland, the architects of the Volhynia massacres of Poles -- as also of the massacres of Jews in Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg
-- could have gone back to their old habits of assassinating Polish policemen.
I first picked up the Galician connection in an article by Scott Humor: " North America is a land run by Galician zombies "
-- published by The Saker on July 4, 2018. It seems that Galicians, especially those that arrived after WWII, migrate into security
positions such as ICE / FBI / NSA etc. It may have to do with a family history of work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Regrettably, I am not from Eastern Europe and cannot help you further about the Bortnicks, the Gathkes, Buchtas, and so on.
"... For the Democrats to reform they need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall Street is a dead end and that they need to oppose the absolute rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in this conflict. ..."
James Carville observed that night in 2016, Democrats haven't been this weak for more than
half-a-century. Some Democrats learned the lesson and ran on 'just fix the damn roads' in
2018 and won. Impeachment is very, very likely to do what the ACA did to Dems in 2010.
Rather than build on the hard-won victories of 2018, Democrats have decided to pursue a
dead-end policy doomed to failure which will galvanize the GOP base and drive independents
months before the election. Even a week ago, I wasn't sure whether Trump will be elected. I'm
much, much more certain now. I warned in 2017 of the opportunity costs of looking for silver
stake solutions to what OW and Carville correctly understand as bad policy, poor candidates,
identity politics, and bad messaging.
So, Russia? My guess is that after the stomping that may very well fall upon the Dems, we
might very well see real reform in the Democratic party, just as we have in the GOP. Trump's
GOP protects businesses, individuals, Americans, opportunity, and social security. And all
the bad shit that both parties always support. Dems need to figure out that Trump has stolen
their message and is on the way to stealing their base. If minorities turn out for Trump (the
GOP wet-dream) Dems are going to face a nightmare scenario. And 34 percent of
African-Americans currently support Trump.
That's a very apt observation with one reservation: one major factor in 2018 success was
Mueller investigation. Now there will be backlash against it, which favors Trump.
Moon of Alabama has a very interesting discussion of the Catch 22 style situation "Full of
Schiff" Dems found themselves with "Pelosi impeachment gambit": in no way they can allow Senate
trial, and they can't allow just a censure, or they lose the face (Schiff career is probably
over at this point in any case)
-- If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
-- If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
-- If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
-- It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
-- It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
A senate impeachment trial would be a disaster for the Dems as Joe & Hunter and Adam
Schiff get to testify under oath.
A censure means that Trump won on points and now can play victim in 2020 election. Situation
which he likes and exploiting which he is a great master (that's why he wants the Senate
trial). And which increases chances of his reelection. In the latter case that most probably
means the end of career (if not prosecution) for Vindman, Hill and other "accusers" (Pelosi
sacrificial pawns in this gambit)
My feeling is that Clinton democrats are doomed to be a failure in 2020. And that Democratic
Party needs to reform (which they failed to do after 2016 fiasco.)
For the Democrats to reform they need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall
Street is a dead end and that they need to oppose the absolute
rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists
between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of expressing a
principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in this
conflict.
"... With Republicans in control of the Senate, the California elder stateswoman always knew that articles of impeachment would have to be based on crimes so egregious and beyond doubt that even Republicans would have had no choice but to convict the president. ..."
"... The math may not be on the Democrats' side, as they have 31 House members representing districts won by Trump in 2016. ..."
"... Pelosi simply cannot discount the fact that at least half – and maybe more – of those Democrat representatives will consider their own chances of re-election as they cast their votes on articles of impeachment. ..."
"... Unlike impeachment, censure is not a constitutional measure. That is not to say that censure is unconstitutional, but that it is simply a course of action devised by Congress and not described in the nation's founding document. There is no mandatory consequence to censure, and nobody would suggest that censure could lead to removal from the office of president. It has been used most often to rebuke or reprimand members of Congress, though Trump, were he censured, would not be the first commander in chief to have faced it. ..."
"... In effect, censure is an act of disapproval. For a member of Congress, it may entail such undesirable consequences as loss of committee memberships or even suspension; it comes with no penalties when used against executive branch officials. And that is how it should be, or the concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government would likely be swept away in an avalanche of partisan censure votes. ..."
"... The Founding Fathers proscribed impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. These are serious crimes – high crimes. Removing from office a duly elected president for anything less is congressional tyranny. Perhaps, before they step into the abyss, some Democrats are coming to that realization. Or perhaps they are simply guarding their posteriors. ..."
At this point, Democrats appear to have dug themselves a rather deep impeachment
hole, and at least a few of them are now looking for a ladder. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) saw this coming but could not withstand the Trump-derangement tide. They do have a way
out, and at least a few of them – along with their surrogates in the media –
realize that censure, rather than impeachment, is their best option for dealing with President
Trump in a way that will not come back to bite their carefully guarded posteriors.
Nancy Pelosi
Regardless of what one may think of Pelosi's political bent, she has always been more
pragmatic than her more strident party colleagues. Sure, she will step in front of any camera
and talk about how Trump is spitting on the Constitution, crushing the souls of hard-working
Americans, and planning to detain all non-white people before our very eyes. But, for the most
part, she understands political realities.
With Republicans in control of the Senate, the California elder stateswoman always knew that
articles of impeachment would have to be based on crimes so egregious and beyond doubt that
even Republicans would have had no choice but to convict the president.
In their impeachment
inquiry , congressional Democrats have come nowhere near that standard. Worse still, they
may barely have the votes to advance articles of impeachment to the Senate. As the balance of
power in the House now stands, the majority Democrats can afford to lose no more than 16 votes
from their own caucus in order to impeach – assuming they get no Republican votes. The
math may not be on the Democrats' side, as they have 31 House members representing districts
won by Trump in 2016.
Pelosi simply cannot discount the fact that at least half – and maybe more – of
those Democrat representatives will consider their own chances of re-election as they cast
their votes on articles of impeachment.
Second Thoughts?
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) is not one of those who represent a 2016 Trump-voting
district. In fact, her safe Democrat district encompasses part of eastern Detroit. Even so, Lawrence
has seen the writing on the wall: Among independent voters, enthusiasm for impeachment is
waning, and Lawrence – who previously supported the idea – is perhaps now thinking
beyond her own chances of re-election.
"I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is," Lawrence explained
Nov. 24 during a radio interview, "I don't see the value of taking [Trump] out of office, but
I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable."
An editorial, published Nov. 23 by The Detroit News, suggests censure of the president
rather than impeachment, and The Chicago Tribune followed suit on Nov. 25. It is neither unfair
nor inaccurate to point out that the left-wing media rarely take up a political narrative not
preapproved by someone within the Democratic Party. So the sudden appearance of editorials
arguing for censure strongly suggests that Democrat strategists are leaning in that direction
or at least testing the waters.
What Is Censure?
Unlike impeachment, censure is not a constitutional measure. That is not to say that censure
is unconstitutional, but that it is simply a course of action devised by Congress and not
described in the nation's founding document. There is no mandatory consequence to censure, and
nobody would suggest that censure could lead to removal from the office of president. It has
been used most often to rebuke or reprimand members of Congress, though Trump, were he
censured, would not be the first commander in chief to have faced it.
In effect, censure is an act of disapproval. For a member of Congress, it may entail such
undesirable consequences as loss of committee memberships or even suspension; it comes with no
penalties when used against executive branch officials. And that is how it should be, or the
concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government would likely be swept away
in an avalanche of partisan censure votes.
Both the Senate and the House have the power to censure or reprimand, and each chamber may
do it without the approval or involvement of the other. Censure requires only a simple
majority. At least some Democrats, surely, are considering how much easier than impeachment
censure will be. They also may be considering how a censure resolution will provide the
opportunity to pontificate at length – on live TV – about Trump's moral turpitude
and failings, both as a human being and as a president.
In 1834, Democrat President Andrew Jackson was censured by a Whig Senate for firing the
Treasury secretary. President John Tyler, a Democrat-turned-Whig who may have been even more of
a boat-rocking maverick than Trump, was reprimanded (another form of censure) in 1842 by the
House of Representatives. President James Polk was reprimanded in 1848 by the House. President
Abraham Lincoln was reprimanded by the Senate in 1864.
Some members of Congress argued for censuring, rather than impeaching, President Bill
Clinton, and that brings up an important point about impeachment: Attempting to remove a
president from office by any means other than a general election is, without a doubt, the
gravest and most consequential action the Congress can take. If the constitutional republic
– with its democratic method of choosing a president – is to be preserved, a
president should not be removed from office by Congress for anything less than an act that
directly endangers the American people or the U.S. government.
Jackson, Tyler, and Lincoln did nothing that justified such a measure. Polk took the country
to war without congressional approval – very much an impeachable offense, many would
argue. How about Clinton? He was not impeached for having sexual relations with a White House
intern but for lying about it to Congress.
If every politician were removed from office for lying, we would have no political
leadership at all. Clinton's lie did not jeopardize the security or stability of the United
States, and one could certainly argue that his was not an impeachable offense. At the time, the
American people appeared to agree.
The Founding Fathers proscribed impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. These are serious crimes – high crimes. Removing from office a duly elected
president for anything less is congressional tyranny. Perhaps, before they step into the abyss,
some Democrats are coming to that realization. Or perhaps they are simply guarding their
posteriors.
"... and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders. that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating Trump. ..."
"... This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since 2014. ..."
"... Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits. ..."
"... A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs. ..."
"... Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election. And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block Trump's impeachment. ..."
"... That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point. Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats. ..."
"... I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate to Rape2Protect. ..."
"... If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop it into their pockets. ..."
"... The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of politicians, obviously. ..."
"... The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose. ..."
"... the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government, which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass. ..."
"... the Democrats won't want to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been discussed here. ..."
"... "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy." ..."
"... Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the 55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class ..."
"... The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment. ..."
"... He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election, Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads would explode and his base would love it. ..."
"... To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go as an independent either. ..."
"An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.
I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy
Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen."
The real reason in my opinion that Pelosi went along with impeachment was that she saw
Bernies message getting through, and even though the DNC pushed all the conserva-dem
candidates they could into the race, Bernie is still doing well and gaining. An impeachment
trial would require Bernie to attend the hearings rather that campaigning. Also Wall Streets
best friend Obama has just stated that Bernie is not a Democrat and that would require Obama
to get on the speaking circuit to campaign against him - you know for the sake of the
corporations - and those 500k speaking thank you gigs. They would rather elect Trump than
Bernie - that is why I think Pelosi would go along with an impeachment trial in the Senate -
Bernie is the greater threat.
The idea to censure Trump and move on has been aired since mid 2017. The latest was
Forbes.com billwhalen 26 September 2019
Link
I ordered a truckload of pop corn to snack on during the trial in the Senate. Just imagine
Joe Biden under cross examination as he flips 'n flops! "Was that me in the Video, I can't
recall."
With interest (even among Democrats) in the impeachment process sliding, the House
Judiciary Committee is set to take over the impeachment probe of President Trump next week,
scheduling a Dec. 4 hearing.
As The Hill reports, behind Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the committee
will hear from legal scholars as Democrats weigh whether the evidence turned up in their
weeks-long impeachment inquiry warrants the drafting of articles aimed at removing the
president from office.
The hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, will focus on the definition of an
impeachable offense and the formal application of the impeachment process. The panel
will invite White House lawyers to attend and participate.
Ahead of the hearing, Nadler wrote to Trump requesting his participation - or
that of White House counsel - as part of ensuring "a fair and informative process."[.]
Trump will take a page from the other president who campaigned on the "do nothing
congress"
and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders.
that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating
Trump.
b, there seems to be a critical flaw in your analysis--you seem to base it on a premise that
the goal of the Democratic establishment is to win elections/gain power/govern. It's not,
it's to ensure the continuing enrichment of themselves and their oligarch peers, financial
industry, military, pharma, etc.
The question people like Pelosi (worth $100 million or so btw along with her husband whose
business she enriches via her position) are pondering isn't "Will doing x, y, z help Trump
win?" It's "Will doing x, y, z ensure Bernie Sanders doesn't win?"
This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are
fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other
against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since
2014.
Of all the things that the Democrats could impeach President Trump over, the one thing they
seized upon was the issue that had the most potential to blow back on them and destroy Joe
Biden's chances of reaching the White House. Whoever had that brilliant idea and put it as
the long straw in a cylindrical prawn-chip can along with all the other straws for pulling
out, sure didn't think of all the consequences that could have arisen. That speaks for the
depth (or lack thereof) of the thinking among senior Democrats and their worker bee analysts,
along with a narrow-minded outlook, sheer hatred of a political outsider and a fanatical zeal
to match that hatred and outlook.
The folks who hatched that particular impeachment plan and pitched it to Nancy Pelosi must
have been the same idiots in the DNC who dreamt up the Russiagate scandal and also pursued
Paul Manafort to get him off DJT's election campaign team. Dmitri Alperovich / Crowdstrike,
Alexandra Chalupa: we're looking at you.
Impeachment takes Sanders out of the campaign and that opens things up for the
CIA/establishment's "Identity Politics Candidate #3" , Mayor Butt-gig.
That said, since "Everyone who doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable
misogynist!" didn't work as expected, I wonder what makes them think "Everyone who
doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable homophobe!" will work any better?
Lots of agreement here with the overall situation becoming clearer with Bloomberg's entrance
and the outing of Obama's plans. I just finished writing my response to Putin's speech before the annual
United Russia Party Congress on the Open Thread and suggest barflies take 10 minutes to
read it and compare what he espouses a political party's deeds & goals ought to be versus
those of the West and its vassals.
Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and
enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism
continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized
Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by
dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're
several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits.
A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire
Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs.
Obviously, a sufficient number of secure Republican representatives are needed to vote in
favor of impeachment to allow this circus to continue to its bizarrely entertaining,
Democratic Party destroying end.
The MSM will declare Trump guilty - that is, he has earned impeachment for Ukrainegate.
There are Democrats still under the illusion that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the
election. Dems tell us that Trump *obstructed* the Mueller investigation thus Trump could not
be nailed, nonetheless Trump is guilty of collusion until proven innocent.
Back to Ukrainegate. Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in
Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election.
And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block
Trump's impeachment.
Tulsi
Gabbard Tweet not specifically about impeachment but begs numerous questions:
"My personal commitment is to always treat you and all Americans with respect. Working
side-by-side, we can defeat the divisiveness of Donald Trump, and usher in a 21st century of
peace, human dignity, & true equality. Working side by side, we can make Dr. King's dream
our reality ." [My Emphasis]
Questions: Is Trump divisive, or is it the D-Party and Current Oligarchy that make him so;
and which is more important to defeat? Which party "usher[ed] in the 21st century" with
several wars and abetted the next two? How did Obama, Slick Willie or his wife advance "human
dignity & true equality"? How does her last sentence differ from "Hope you can believe
in"? Hasn't her D-Party worked tirelessly for decades to circumvent the goals she espouses?
Wouldn't Gabbard have a better chance running as an Enlightened Republican than as a Renegade
Democrat if her goal's to defeat Trump?
American Democracy is political professional wrestling, Kabuki Theater, and mediocre Reality
TV all rolled into. by: AK74 @ 4 <= binary divide <=conducted by the USA, is not about
America, Americans or making America great again, its about the welfare of [the few<=
which most Americans would not call fellow Americans].
Sasha.@ 23 I don't understand where you are coming from.. thank Korlof1 @18 for posting
that Putin talk alert. excerpts from the talk.. => The priority [of United Russia has
been] the protection of the people's interests, the interests of [the] Motherland, and
..responsible [approach] to ..country, its security, stability and people's lives in the
long-term perspective.
The party.. offered a unifying agenda based on freedom and well being, patriotism,
..traditional values, a strong civil society and a strong state. The key issue in the party's
work .being together with the people, Karlof1@18 <=this talk suggest change in Russian
leadership that are not congruent with your [Sasha] comment @23. I hope you will make more
clear what you spent sometime writing ( and for that effort I thank you) but it is not yet
clear what you mean.. .
Re: Brenda Lawrence talking about censure rather than impeachment:
That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among
the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least
take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point.
Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats.
Yet another other option is to continue the investigation indefinitely. I'm going to say
it is their default move actually. In that case, the House Judiciary Committee would spend a
few weeks putting on their own show, then say they would like more evidence to be really
sure, returning matters to the House Intelligence Committee, and we repeat the cycle.
I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party
with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to
keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate
to Rape2Protect.
It is sad to see us all talking about which of the lesser of horrible evils will continue
the leadership of American faced empire.....I hope it crashes soon and takes the global elite
down with it.....how many barflies are ready to stand up and say NO to the owners of the
Super-Priority derivatives that will say they own the world because of their casino (no skin
in the game) bets that are currently "legal" in America when the crash comes?
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to -- if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get. That should tell you all you need to know about Americans.
If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties
descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five
billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many
billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop
it into their pockets.
The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all
those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of
politicians, obviously.
Re: #3 Allen – well said. The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the
party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose.
The problem with this prediction is that the MSM has been breathlessly pronouncing that THIS
IS EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE!!!! pretty much every day and after every witness testimony.
So if you are a member of the public who gets their "information" from the MSM (and, be
honest, that is most of the people in the USA) then you have been force-fed is that Trumps
defense against these allegations has already been shredded, and that his guilt has already
been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
How can those opinion-makers then turn around and say "Nah, it'll be fine" and settle for
a mere censure?
Wouldn't the Sheeple respond with a fully-justified "Hey, hang on! What gives?"
The Democrats has leapt on a Tiger. Nobody made them do it, but now they are there I don't
think they are going to be able to leap off.
Some of the first-term nobodies, maybe, but not the Schiffs and the Pelopis and the
Nadlers.
Hang on for dear life and hope for a miracle is probably their only option now.
And, who knows, that trio may be so incompetent that they actually think they are going to
win.
james, the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual
mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who
think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that
isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the
procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government,
which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and
illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse
before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work
out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass.
The US is a one party State-- Pepsi _Pepsi Lite. Both parties are capitalist. It is rather
humorous the attention paid to a Dim vs Repug argument. Small thinking for small minds---
As I posted at the beginning of the impeachment process, the Dems would be foolish to hang it
all on the arcane shenanigans in Ukraine but rather should impeach Trump on the numerous more
serious breaches and crimes that he has committed. I also worried that the Democratic Party
leaders would blow the opportunity to demonstrate that Trump and the Republican Party are
rotten to the core and harmful to the country. And so they have blown it. What an inept pack
of asses.
I would think that even censure is still going to be a hot potato for the Democrats. Looking
at the procedure as far as wikipedia describes it, it hasn't done anything of significance
when it comes to being used against a president, especially as the Democrats won't want
to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been
discussed here.
That means they would be censuring on the same shaky grounds that they would have
impeached him, which only prolongs attention upon the dubious claims of the indictment. It
seems to me Trump will, rather than be shamed by the process, only be saying 'Make my day',
and hopefully have his Attorney General come forward with exonerating revelations on that
issue in the judicial proceeding that it was my contention the impeachment effort had been a
last ditch one to forestall such.
Wishful thinking on that, I know - but at least that probe has merit.
Thanks for your reply! And thanks for linking the Keen video! Made a comment on that
thread.
As I wrote when the possibility of Trump's impeachment arose almost as soon as he was
inaugurated, the entire charade reminds me of Slick Willie's impeachment, trial and
exoneration--the Articles of Impeachment utilized were such that he'd avoid conviction just
as they will be for Trump.
Allen @ 3 said; "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist
to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly
bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential
service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere
existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and
this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a
"democracy."
With very few exceptions, you nailed it..Your description of the Dem. party is sad, but
true.....
Not having much time to watch the show trial it appears to me the Democrats still have a set
of very weak candidates. Anyone who knows Biden knows he in not now and never will be able to
handle a campaign against Trump.
Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the
55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The
rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class in the same fashion that
the rank and file Republicans were tired of the political establishment which caused then to
turn to Trump.
Is the Democrat political establishment smart enough to take a few steps back and push
forward some outsiders? I doubt that but they would not lose much if they did. Any new
leaders would have the same stable of bureaucrats to pick from which will still be there long
after they are gone.
The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote
and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full
story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election,
Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads
would explode and his base would love it.
The...***The***...core takeaway, the battle at the heart of Russiagate/Ukrainegate, is that
it does not matter who the People elect as President and what platform he was elected on the
Deep State will decide foreign policy.
democrats republicans makes no difference both teams are managed by self serving scum who
refuse to allow "what the people want" to distract them from the big one. "what can I
steal?".
People meed to appreciate two things about both the dems and the rethugs. The first is
they supply a much-needed insight into: "How low can I go as a worthless hang off the wagon
by me fingernails, careerist. The second? That every hack must understand that eventually
every talking head is seen for the ugly sellout which they are.
There is no 'honourable way through this mess', one either quietly resigns pulling the pin
on the worst of us all, or one accepts the previously unacceptable, that we are most likely
both musically n functionally illiterate but it never matters what-u-say, what really counts
is what you do.
Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to
their party.
I would disagree here. If the Democrats continue they will destroy themselves hopefully
leading to Mutually Assured Destruction as they would need to do something very drastic to
destroy the Republicans in return e.g. expose 9/11, Iraq etc, let the swamp / Deep State go
M.A.D. and from the political ashes parties and politicians can rise who are actually working
for the betterment of the USA and its people.
To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American
electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere
political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win
the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go
as an independent either.
Bernie Sanders is different from all other independent presidential candidates in American
History because he was the first to really want to win. That's why he penetrated the
Democratic machine, even though he became senator many times as an independent. He read the
conjuncture correctly and, you have to agree, he's been more influential over American
political-ideological landscape than all the other independents put together (not considering
Eugene Debs as an independent).
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to--if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get.
That should tell you all you need to know about Americans. by: AK74 @ 34
<= No not yet do I agree with you.. The American young people are forced into the
military in order to afford to be educated, and in order to have access to health care and
good-level workforce entry jobs especially the military is default for children of struggling
parents that cannot fund a college education or for the kids who are not yet ready to become
serious students.
The USA has not always discounted America or denied Americans. When I grew up, a college
education was very affordable, health care was available to even the most needy at whatever
they could afford, most of us could work our way through the education and find decent entry
level jobs if we were willing to dedicate ourselves to make the opportunity of a job into a
success (education, degrees, licenses were not needed, just performance was enough).
Unfortunately third party private mind control propaganda was used to extend into fake space,
the belief that the USA provides a valuable service to American interest. As time went on,
the USA had to hid its activities in top secret closets, it then had to learn to spy on
everyone, and it had to prosecute those (whistle blowers) who raised a question. Hence the
predicament of the awaken American dealing with friends that still believe the USA is good
for America.. Others hope the good times will return but the USA tolerance for descent is
dissipating. After the 16th amendment and the federal reserve act in 1913 the USA began to
edge America out in favor of international globalization.
Most of the really important parts of what made the USA great for Americans has been sold
off [privatized] and the protections and umpiring and refereeing that the USA used to provide
to keep the American economic space highly competitive and freely accessible to all
competitors has not only ceased, but now operates as a monopoly factory, churning out laws,
rules and establishing agencies that make the wealthy and their corporate empires wealthier,
richer and more monopolistic at the expense of everyday Americans.
The USA began to drop America from its sights after WWII. The USA moved its efforts and
activities from American domestic concerns to global concerns in 1948, neglected its advance
and protect American ideology; it imposed the continental shelf act in 1954 and the EPA act
in 1972, in order to force American industry out of America (the oil business to Saudi Arabia
and OPEC); by 1985-95 most businesses operating in America were either forced to close or
forced to move to a cheap third world labor force places.. .<=the purpose is now clear, it
was to separate Americans from their industrial and manufacturing know-how and to block
American access to evolving technology . At first most Americans did not notice.
Many Americans are only now waking to the possibility that things topside have changed and
some are realizing just how vulnerable the US constitution has made the USA to outside
influence. .. thanks to the USA very little of good ole America remains. but the humanity
first instinct most Americans are born with remains mostly unchanged, even though the
globalist have decimated religious organizations, most Americans still believe their maker
will not look favorably on those who deny justice, democracy or who abuse mankind. The USA
has moved on, it has become a global empire, operating in a global space unknown to most
Americans. The USA has created a world of its own, it no longer needs domestic America, it
can use the people and resources of anyone anywhere in the world for its conquest.
The last two political campaigns for President were "Change=Obama" and "Make America Great
Again=Trump"; neither of these two would have succeeded if Americans did not feel the
problem.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
"... As Mark Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump administration policy was made by Trump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Trump's Ukraine policy was "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" -- that is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, "Nobody elects an 'interagency consensus.'" ..."
"... The Washington Examiner ..."
"... Vindman's perspective "is a classic bureaucrat's view of government and the world." York then added, speaking of the fabled interagency process: ..."
"... okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach Trump. ..."
Still, it is possible to look back at the hearings and assess what went wrong for Team
Impeach. In a nutshell, House Democrats gambled that a procession of witnesses, most of them
careerists -- or, if one prefers, foreign service and military officers, yet still careerists
-- would deliver a knockout blow to Trump. Yet what emerged from their testimony was that,
well, they were bureaucrats .
As Mark
Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump
administration policy was made by Trump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman,
Trump's Ukraine policy was "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" -- that
is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, "Nobody
elects an 'interagency consensus.'"
Indeed, as Byron
York of The Washington Examiner pointed out, Vindman's perspective "is a classic
bureaucrat's view of government and the world." York then added, speaking of the fabled
interagency process:
Needless to say, Trump does not do that sort of thing. The president is remarkably
freewheeling, unbureaucratic, and certainly not always consistent when it comes to making
policy. But he generally has a big goal in mind, and in any event, he is the president of the
United States. He, not the interagency, sets U.S. foreign policy.
In the words of Harry Truman, "The buck stops here ." Here, that is, at the desk of
the commander-in-chief, not in the cubicles of bureaucratic functionaries.
So now we begin to see how the Democrats made their mistake. Having gotten their inspiration
in the first place from that Deep State whistleblower, they then assumed they could carry on
their "investigation," relying on still more Deep Statists. But these individuals don't
typically make for good witnesses -- at least up to the level of convincing people to think,
okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach
Trump.
On November 25, Congressman Matt Gaetz poured
acid on the political effectiveness of the Democrats' chosen witnesses:
In the State Department people think there's only one way to do things. That they have to
do it through their precise diplomatic channels & only in the way they all learned going
to the same schools & working at the same think tanks.
Thus we can see a wide cleft here, between the delicate and precise culture of the
bureaucracy and the churning and heaving culture of the anti-bureaucracy, led by you-know-who.
For their part, the Democrats made the mistake of siding with the bureaucrats -- and when was
the last time a bureaucrat won an election, to say nothing of a national election?
In fact, if we peer down into that wide cleft, between bureaucratic super-ego and
presidential id, we see something even deeper than the Deep State -- we see the fundamental
workings of the human brain.
... ... ...
So lotsa luck, Democrats, if you pass impeachment in the House. That Senate trial, dominated
by Trumpy right-brained Republicans, won't be in the least bit woke, but it sure will be
lit.
James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a regular panelist on the
Fox "News Watch" show, the highest-rated media-critique show on television. He is a former
columnist for Newsday, and is the editor of SeriousMedicineStrategy.org. He has written for
publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post,
The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune,
The Huffington Post , and The Jerusalem Post . He is the author of What Comes
Next: The End of Big Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He worked in
the White House domestic policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in
the 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns. In 2008 he served as a senior adviser to
the Mike Huckabee for President Campaign. Married to the former Elizabeth Dial, he is a
graduate of Stanford University.
"... Authored by John Solomon via JohnSolomonReports.com, ..."
"... Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. ..."
"... State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. ..."
"... The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to January
2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. ..."
"... All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint
project with Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
..."
"... All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. ..."
"... All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media
activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on
the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize
allegations against Paul Manafort. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa
and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. ..."
There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies like the State Department that could
substantially alter the public's understanding of what has happened in the U.S.-Ukraine relationships now at the heart of the impeachment
probe.
As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12
tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these
memos might answer.
Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies
about Zelensky's ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary
Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president's daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine
corruption and U.S. foreign aid?
CNBC ,
Reuters and
The Wall Street
Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully
considered during the impeachment proceedings.
State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko . He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first
meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko's account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure
Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations
and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?
State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre.
There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether
that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did
State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money
and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors' concerns legitimate?
The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to
January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden
ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma?
Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden's role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies
to justify Biden's threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn't fired?
All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine.
The U.S. government's main whistleblower office
is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy
business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct
described by the whistleblower?
OSC has concluded there is a "substantial likelihood of wrongdoing" involved in these activities.
All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings.
What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors
to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma
or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the
various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?
All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue
a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official
George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma's corruption reputation. Did Hunter
Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end?
What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?
All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home
of the company's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma's American representatives
were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter
Biden's name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma's efforts
to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?
All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department
officials believed Hunter Biden's association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president,
and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden's office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies
tell Joe Biden's office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?
All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social
media activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such
monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence
on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts
to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they
react? What were these federal agencies' reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials
had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra
Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. Did anyone in these U.S. government
agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in
2016 on Trump and Manafort?
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
"... Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of people became wise to what's been happening all along. ..."
"... Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions ..."
"... Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues ..."
"... An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society". There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist. ..."
From a big picture perspective, the largest rift in American politics is between those
willing to admit reality and those clinging to a dishonest perception of a past that never
actually existed. Ironically, those who most frequently use "post-truth" to describe our
current era tend to be those with the most distorted view of what was really happening during
the Clinton/Bush/Obama reign.
Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically
whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and
economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now
actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of
people became wise to what's been happening all along.
They want to forget about the bipartisan coverup of Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, all
the wars based on lies, and the indisputable imperial crimes disclosed by Wikileaks, Snowden
and others. They want to pretend Wall Street crooks weren't bailed out and made even more
powerful by the Bush/Obama tag team, despite ostensible ideological differences between the
two. They want to forget Epstein Didn't Kill Himself.
Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't
accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to
year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions. As such, the
most meaningful fracture in American society today is between those who've accepted that we've
been lied to for a very long time, and those who think everything was perfectly fine before
Trump. There's no real room for a productive discussion between such groups because one of them
just wants to get rid of orange man, while the other is focused on what's to come. One side
actually believes a liberal world order existed in the recent past, while the other
fundamentally recognizes this was mostly propaganda based on myth.
Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least
appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues. In contrast, resistance
liberals just desperately scramble to put up whoever they think can take us back to a
make-believe world of the recent past. This distinction is actually everything. It's the
difference between people who've at least rejected the status quo and those who want to rewind
history and perform a do-over of the past forty years.
A meaningful understanding that unites populists across the ideological spectrum is the
basic acceptance that the status quo is pernicious and unsalvageable, while the status
quo-promoting opposition focuses on Trump the man while conveniently ignoring the worst of his
policies because they're essentially just a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Obama. It's the most
shortsighted and destructive response to Trump imaginable. It's also why the Trump-era alliance
of corporate, imperialist Democrats and rightwing Bush-era neoconservatives makes perfect
sense, as twisted and deranged as it might seem at first. With some minor distinctions, these
people share nostalgia for the same thing.
This sort of political environment is extremely unhealthy because it places an intentional
and enormous pressure on everyone to choose between dedicating every fiber of your being to
removing Trump at all costs or supporting him. This anti-intellectualism promotes an ends
justifies the means attitude on all sides. In other words, it turns more and more people into
rhinoceroses.
Eugène Ionesco's masterpiece, Rhinoceros, is about a central European town where
the citizens turn, one by one, into rhinoceroses. Once changed, they do what rhinoceroses do,
which is rampage through the town, destroying everything in their path. People are a little
puzzled at first, what with their fellow citizens just turning into rampaging rhinos out of
the blue, but even that slight puzzlement fades quickly enough. Soon it's just the New
Normal. Soon it's just the way things are a good thing, even. Only one man resists the siren
call of rhinocerosness, and that choice brings nothing but pain and existential doubt, as he
is utterly profoundly alone.
A political environment where you're pressured to choose between some ridiculous binary of
"we must remove Trump at all costs" or go gung-ho MAGA, is a rhinoceros generating machine. The
only thing that happens when you channel your inner rhinoceros to defeat rhinoceroses, is you
get more rhinoceroses. And that's exactly what's happening.
The truth of the matter is the U.S. is an illiberal democracy in practice,
despite various myths to the contrary.
An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty
democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although
elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who
exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society".
There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as
'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be
because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its
liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not
exist.
It's not a new thing by any means, but it's getting worse by the day. Though many of us
remain in denial, the American response to various crises throughout the 21st century was
completely illiberal. As devastating as they were, the attacks of September 11, 2001 did
limited damage compared to the destruction caused by our insane response to them. Similarly,
any direct damage caused by the election and policies of Donald Trump pales in comparison to
the damage being done by the intelligence agency-led "resistance" to him.
So are we all rhinoceroses now?
We don't have to be. Turning into a rhinoceros happens easily if you're unaware of what's
happening and not grounded in principles, but ultimately it is a choice. The decision to
discard ethics and embrace dishonesty in order to achieve political ends is always a choice. As
such, the most daunting challenge we face now and in the chaotic years ahead is to become
better as others become worse. A new world is undoubtably on the horizon, but we don't yet know
what sort of world it'll be. It's either going to be a major improvement, or it'll go the other
way, but one thing's for certain -- it can't stay the way it is much longer.
If we embrace an ends justifies the means philosophy, it's going to be game over for a
generation. The moment you accept this tactic is the moment you stoop down to the level of your
adversaries and become just like them. It then becomes a free-for-all for tyrants where
everything is suddenly on the table and no deed is beyond the pale. It's happened many times
before and it can happen again. It's what happens when everyone turns into rhinoceroses.
* * *
If you enjoyed this, I suggest you check out the following 2017 posts. It's never been more
important to stay conscious and maintain a strong ethical framework.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all
you need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition
between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it
is still a dangerous one. The United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight
Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko. The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a POTUS
kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins
– Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the
Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal
clear; and it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable
dereliction of duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger
about losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the
Donald from office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the
Deep State, which has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald
has declined to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He
thereby threatens the Empire's raison d'être to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and
impeachment inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in
office – and especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might
actually make peace with Russia and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine would
be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic
aid – a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence
peddling which ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election,
and, in return, incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that
has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
with virtually zero capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders NATO
an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's
imperial self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also
crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be
inadvertently sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads
they are dragging out of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons
– just maybe their utterly preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and
Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the somnolent American public to the absurdity of the
entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the
Donbas rather than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above
was reprinted in the New York Times or The Onion ?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and
Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete
chimera; and the notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer
against Russian aggression is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in
Alaska a decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is
just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a
multitude of nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of
wheat fields. That's not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war
machine capable of threatening the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be
erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar
purchasing terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared to
$2.2 trillion for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines
likely to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work
force. That's a problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age
population – even supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs
– is heading south as far into the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population
will be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is
already just a fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment
anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation
of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of
cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile
ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation
of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans"
among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently
calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and
trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable.
Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what
he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American
continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea
power projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist
of an armada of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics
warfare capability and the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart
weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500
personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air
wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and
attached logistics ships.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero
modern carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the
Israeli paper, Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the
Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a
long history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's
cold waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent
refueling and resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this
smoke belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at
all from the high tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the
Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in
the Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most
technologically advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have
numerical superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor
ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it
across thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing
fighter and attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700
transport and airlift aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous.
Russia is essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed,
for the world's only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat
from Moscow is a prime facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and
relationship with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and
the current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more
than that of Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with
Putin's Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the
tensions that do exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February
2014 were fomented by Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO
machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor,
NATO doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office
pointing out its buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing
up a storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke.
They are fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their
budgets or taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to mention
the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany. Vladimir Putin
isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army taking the Fuehrer-bunker
– but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly
willing to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43 billion on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion
GDP, which happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that
have emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own
book in behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the
final Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2
In Part 1 we dispatched UkraineGater Tim Morrison's preposterous suggestion that
Washington is helping Kiev subdue the Donbas so we won't have Russkies coming up the East
River.
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more
ludicrous. The actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from
Washington when it instigated, funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of
Kiev during February 2014, which illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on
the grounds that he was too friendly with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine. Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of
global attention that they commanded .
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist
government with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea
and the Donbas – that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep. And
those interests included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at
Sevastopol in Crimea which had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries
under czars and commissars alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater
detail below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have
been paraded before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the
"invasion" quote cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of
Ambassador Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington
rendition of the Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that
dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was
so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he
tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence,
whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country
in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army
rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed
formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to
Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a
shred of truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate
military and economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of
neocon stooges took exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens
and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting
not the constitution and the rule of law, but the bipartisan political consensus on Capitol
Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her Wall Street Journal
platform to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a
military career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the
blunt-spoken American military men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned
Ukraine into a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks,
NGOs, foreign policy experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies
– from DOD through the State Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the
Board for International Broadcasting and countless more – which ply their trade in the
Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes;
they're apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as
they lead the nation to the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing
their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible
disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex
relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance
or the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely
consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's
sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story,
starting with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February
2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align
itself economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the
European Union and NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of
Ukraine then led by Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal
from Moscow than was being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of
Kiev reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the
east and Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine
during the 1930s and Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and
back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven
outbreak of Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March
2014 to formally re-affiliate with Mother Russia.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would
remind that Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the last
800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few
and far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals
with or surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks,
Muscovites, Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the
Kingdom of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light
yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars)
ceased their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas
of the map north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which
had emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map
also makes clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk
sharing common linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for
the administrative convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917
per the yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were
amalgamated by absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword
of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the
18th and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating Russian populations to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in
St. Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war
between the so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these
territories and elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist
rulers proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia
into one of its four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR)
– along with the Russian, Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the
infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto
the Red Army and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue
areas (Volhynia and parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated
into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession
struggle in 1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his
supporters in Kiev. That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given
that precious few Ukrainians actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist
Russia after it was purchased by Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers. The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending
Adam's Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial
integrity and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of
history's most despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of
Russian aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region
(yellow area with brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian
and ethnic Ukrainians who predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian,
Moldovan, Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev
in February 2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often
bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all
around to which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea
– have been intimately connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine
share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the
Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's
population and industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the
event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share
strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No
Russian leader of any stripe would survive as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to
be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from
Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there,
according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who
spearheaded much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant
effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation
residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct
cultures" causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea,
the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what
they consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its
Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the
national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded
to avoid a violent national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had
campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join
NATO was just plain nuts, as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
"... "US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg (foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure him? ..."
"... "Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable candidate in the Democratic Party field. ..."
"... Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected. ..."
"... It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further; two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I did", what or who made you think that you could do that? ..."
"Graham's conspiracy theory-based investigation is rooted in the
baseless allegation that Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor in 2016
as a way to protect Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, against a corruption probe. Biden's
son Hunter was previously a board member with Burisma until April this year.
There is no evidence to support allegations that Biden acted improperly in calling for the
prosecutor general in charge of the Burisma probe to be ousted, and both Ukrainian and U.S.
officials have said there is no merit to the claim. As many have since noted, the Burisma
investigation was in fact dormant when the prosecutor general was forced out on accusations
he was slow-walking corruption probes, among other things.
Trump brought up that debunked conspiracy during a July 25 call with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden as well as a
baseless conspiracy involving the Democratic National Committee servers."
"Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality
of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?" " What
does it mean to say that we know something? ", and fundamentally "How do we know that we
know?"
~ wiki on epistemology
-------------
As in the example above from the "American Independent," the MSM and online projects like
the American Independent incessantly insist that the simple fact that Hunter Biden and his dear
old dad, a "Union Man," solicited money in Ukraine and in China for services not rendered
proves nothing, that nothing has been proven against them and that any mention of these
occurrences is evidence of harsh partisan rhetoric based on fantasy and equivalent to belief in
the Loch Ness Monster.
Well, pilgrims I want to know who and what investigation or investigations cleared the
Bidens of anything.
It is obvious that Hunter is qualified for employment as a bag man and not much else. He has
a law degree? So what? As in the matter of the qualifications of doctors, not all learn much in
medical or law school.
"US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg
(foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure
him?
"Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable
candidate in the Democratic Party field.
The article highlighted here, typically, is a lie. As documented in Moon of Alabama's
timeline (
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/a-timeline-of-joe-bidens-intervention-against-the-prosecutor-general-of-ukraine.html),
Shokin was actively investigating Zlochevsky in February 2016, when Shokin seized his luxury
car. Barely two weeks later, Biden was on the phone to Poroshenko demanding Shokin's firing.
While this doesn't prove that Biden was motivated primarily by a desire to protect his son's
employer, it is certainly consistent with that possibility.
John Solomon has been very much in the lead on reporting from Ukraine which furthers what the
MSM calls "conspiracy theories".
While he earlier reported, or opined, from The Hill,
now he evidently has been bumped (my opinion) from that perch,
and now has own blog John Solomon Report : https://johnsolomonreports.com/
It is tragic, IMO, how the MSM ignores the facts that Solomon documents in his
columns.
It is possible that JS is a mouthpiece for corrupt elements in Ukraine,
but I think his points deserve more attention than they have been getting.
There are two sides to this story, not only one as Col. Lang pointed out in his root
piece.
I recall that the Russiagate conspiracy theory was "proven" factual as well, and by many of
the same people who claim that Biden's corruption has been "debunked". Even though it was
absurd on its face and had been debunked numerous times, many people in fact continue to
insist otherwise.
Seriously....who would think Biden's son taking a highly paid position with a company in a
foreign country that Biden was representing the US in wasn't a conflict of interest? Even the
'appearance' of a conflict of interest should be avoided in such situations.
I find Biden and his political 'career', greased by his 'good old Joe act' disgusting in so
many ways it would take too long to describe them here.
The media really seems to be testing the limits of disinformation. More and more, the media
wants to convince people that black is white and up is down. Fortunately, I don't think their
plan is working all that well.
In the case of Hunter Biden, we are told that "There is no evidence to support allegations
that Biden acted improperly".
Okay, that's one way to look at things, but I have found that even among my liberal
friends, the fetid smell of corruption emitting from this case, is overpowering. And while
most people might have a hard time sinking their teeth into a "quid pro quo", they do have a
pretty good grasp of old fashioned influence peddling, which is what we are talking
about.
So why has the media chosen to defend the crooked goings-on of public officials who were
obviously up to no good? Don't they care about their credibility at all?
Was the American Independent quote lifted from The NY Times? It sure sounds like it!
For some time I've been wondering how exactly Biden got cleared. Was there any formal
investigation? Who conducted it? And how reliable are the facts when they come from a place
like Ukraine, where anything, including the 'truth,' can be laundered?
What's become painfully obvious is how eagerly America's major news outlets, including the
journals of record, participate in the laundering of truth.
Of course, that should have been obvious from the yellow journalism preceding the war in
Iraq.
What's really scary are reports that "intelligence" services get most of their 'facts'
from the very same truth laundering sources.
I always got the impression the "wild, debunked conspiracy theory pushed by right wing nuts"
was always referring to the Crowdstrike DNC computer investigation hoax that Trump tried to
re-open.
They would never specifically refer to the Crowdstrike favor Trump specifically asked for
in the phone call, instead they would substitute Trump asked about some "debunked, wild right
wing conspiracy".
So they never explained how the Crowdstrike investigation hoax was debunked either.
To me this is far more interesting missing debunked conspiracy link - since it shows
incredible coordination between the DNC, the "leak" of their DNC computer data, Ukrainian
Crowdstrike, and finally the Mueller Report who used the DNC Crowdstrike investigation
conclusoin hook line and sinker to reach their own official conclusions which is now "proven"
operating dogma. Without ever doing an independent investigation themselves. How often does
that happen?
To me the Crowdstrike connection begs further investigation - why would a Russian hating
Ukrainian who was running Crowdstrike point the finger at the Russians and claim they
"hacked" the DNC computers, but not let anyone else touch those same computers to corroborate
that conclusion?
And then parlay this into Trump supporting Russian interference in the 2016 election. All
too tidy for me. Feels like dark forces are still at work, and subverting language to achieve
their ends.
Whatever happened to Joe Biden's taped boast, at the Council on Foreign Relations, that he
gave President Poroshenko 6 hours to fire Prosecutor Shokin -- or else lose $1 Billion of US
aid ?
How was this taped confession of QUID-PRO-QUO debunked ?
The media (approx. 99% of them) have been in the tank for Democrats since at least the
Vietnam war.
Roger Ailes said why he didn't read the NY Times:
"You cover the bad news about America. You do. But you don't get up in the morning hating
your country."
Eight days later Joe Biden launched an intense pressure campaign to get rid of Shokin. He
personally calls Poroshenko on Feb 12, 18 and 19 to press for firing Shokin.
To think that this is unrelated is not reasonable.
The rest of the
timeline shows further Biden influence in the case.
(I should update that timeline as a lot of additional evidence of Burisma lobbying State
at that time has since come in.)
There are tons of additional dirt. The U.S. has control over the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and uses it to push all such investigations to its favor. NABU has
itself been involved in serious corruption.
There is also a USAID/Soros paid NGO that has a similar function and is equally corrupt.
These organizations are used as weapons to put all Ukrainian assets into the hands of
those that the U.S. embassy likes.
Lutsenko was the guy who was appointed as Prosecutor General after Biden got the previous
one fired. IOW Lutsenko owed his job to Biden.
Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and
embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as
their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been
bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing
Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected.
The only thing I can conclude is that Lutsenko is probably just trying to survive the
shifting tides in the Ukrainian swamp and will say or do whatever it takes.
"American Independent" is David Brock's Clinton / Soros linked Shareblue disinfo and troll
brigade rebranded. It will obviously tell every lie going to protect the corrupt Corporate Dem Establishment,
the Globalists and the Deep State. https://twitter.com/Ian56789/status/1198338991814250497
It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further;
two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian
prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I
did", what or who made you think that you could do that?
"... She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands. ..."
"... "In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests." ..."
"... government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. ..."
"... Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials. ..."
"... In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies .. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin. ..."
"... Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in Kiev. ..."
"... Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race .. ..."
"... But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another's elections. ..."
"... While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government. ..."
"... Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed, ..."
"... "In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire." ..."
"... On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR . ..."
"... NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security. ..."
"... True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine, renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia. ..."
"... Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries. ..."
"... That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward. ..."
"... The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind. ..."
"... But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood. ..."
"... George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well. ..."
"... David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, ..."
"... . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader . ..."
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
The New York Times , in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
"... America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted. ..."
"... Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent, sensitive type would be concerned by it. ..."
"... America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over" as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened. ..."
"... Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington. ..."
"... Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even insist they do so. ..."
The motives for so many Western spies serving the Soviet Union – and in the 1940s and
1950s the Soviets had the best "humint" on earth – were rather idealistic. This was
largely true for the Cambridge Circle in Britain. They were concerned that America was going
to "lord it over" the Russians and everyone else.
America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the
1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted.
Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined
towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of
major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent,
sensitive type would be concerned by it.
You certainly did not have to be a communist to feel that way, but being one assisted with
access to important Soviet contacts. They sought you out.
America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable
position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over"
as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened.
It made little secret of its desire to keep such a monopoly, so brilliant people like
Oppenheimer would be well aware of something they might well regard as ominous.
Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the
Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there
were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington.
A hugely important general like MacArthur was unblinkingly ready in 1950 to use atomic
weapons in the Korean War to destroy North Korea's connections with China.
I read several major biographies of Oppenheimer, and there is little to nothing concerning
Soviet intelligence work. When I came across the Sudoplatov book with its straightforward
declaration of Oppenheimer's assistance, it was difficult to know how to weigh the claim.
Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even
insist they do so.
Judging by what is suggested here, if Oppenheimer did help, it was in subtle ways like
letting Klaus Fuchs, a fellow scientist and a rather distinguished one (but a Soviet spy),
look at certain papers. But the scientific community always has some considerable tendency to
share information, a tendency having nothing to do with spying.
In general, it should be understood, that Oppenheimer, despite all his brilliance, was a
rather disturbed man all his life. Quite early on, as just one example, he attempted to
poison someone he did not like. Only pure luck prevented the man's eating a lethally-laced
apple. There were other disturbing behaviors too.
Later they believed that equality of superpower status for the Soviet Union would
contribute to world peace.
How dumb were these "scientists". Everyone knows that once Soviet Union fell, peace and
freedom and democracy are flowering all over the world and United States are not waging any
wars anymore.
"... It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion? ..."
"... The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine. ..."
"... Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. ..."
"... Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model. ..."
"... The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is not the issue. ..."
"... I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the most blatant coup in history". ..."
"... This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam. ..."
"... This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief. ..."
"... When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. ..."
he Wall Street Journal 's Peggy Noonan liked what she saw when U.S. diplomats George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr. went
before the House Intelligence Committee to give testimony as part of the ongoing impeachment drama. She saw them as "the old America
reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
All true. Kent, with his bow tie and his family tradition of public service, appeared to be the very picture of the old-school
American foreign service official. And Taylor, with his exemplary West Point career, his Vietnam heroism, and his longtime national
service, seemed a throwback to the blunt-spoken American military men who gave us our World War II triumph and our rise to global
dominance.
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue
to them, since it is the same geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy establishment,
of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing
America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither
gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or
the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in
what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
Both Taylor and Kent declared that America's vital national interest is wrapped up in Ukraine, though neither sought to explain
why in any substantive way. Spin out all the potential scenarios of Ukraine's fate and then ask whether any of them would materially
affect America's vital interests. Any affirmative answer would require elaborate contortions.
It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of
Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has
a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion?
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's
rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to
the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an
extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv
that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point
of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments."
And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment] controversy that we are discussing today."
In contrast to this misleading rendition, here are the facts, with appropriate context.
In 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification,
the West would not seek to exploit the situation through any eastward expansion -- not even by "one inch," as then-secretary of state
James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually
led right up to the Russian border.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany.
As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in
NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the U.S. Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles
up against the soft underbelly of the Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and industrial capacity at
risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries
share strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive
as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to
gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded
much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign
nation -- and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
But Ukraine is a tragically divided nation, with many of its people drawn to the West while others feel greater ties to Russia.
The late Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures." Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal
of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in
Crimea, the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they consider their Russian heritage.
The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear
that the national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent national confrontation.)
In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych,
to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These
actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations
aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western
Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria
Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she
declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian
coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that
enables U.S. meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine
(the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated
a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by
Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia -- the global "heartland,"
in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder -- renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability
to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural
tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive
player -- aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the
U.S. government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive
when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian
orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and
aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze
Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues
and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
American diplomacy is rather reminiscent of German diplomacy in 1917, in that expanding NATO into Ukraine and the Baltics is as
stupidly provocative to Moscow as the Zimmerman Telegram was to the US. Zimmerman's offer was incredibly stupid since it provoked
a US declaration of war but Germany had absolutely no way to provide Mexico any material assistance. Neither will NATO be providing
any real assistance to Ukraine or the Baltic states if the balloon goes up -- today's Bundeswehr is not your grandfathers Wehrmacht.
True. The stupidity of US policy toward Russia can only be defeated by stupidity of the limitrophus of Eastern Europe, like Poland
or the Baltic states. If "balloon goes up" they will be first to evaporate.
Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is
involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. The first person to speak out publicly was the former diplomat (and godfather of "Containment")
George Kennan. In his last public comment, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times warning against pushing NATO to the East as
a policy guaranteed to cause Russian fear and resentment. In the early years of the century, Mikhail Gorbachev - no friend of
Putin's - accused the West of trying to treat Russia like a third rate nation. It is sad that the "deep state" maneuvers against
Trump (up and running early enough to destroy Paul Manafort) derailed Trump's plans to talk openly with Putin and thus earn him
the blind hatred of John Brennan. The rest is history.
You need a foreign policy update. Ukraine and Europe are not longer our problems. They have grown ideologically distant and opposed
to US interests, which is self interest and transactional foreign policy now. The days of "altruistic" foreign policy are over
with. Marshall died long ago.
This is totally inaccurate. The current Russian system is not socialist, and it certainly has problems with corruption, but it
is opposed to the Western establishment and it is promoting a traditional Christian and nationalist outlook as opposed to the
liberal globalism of the Western elites. It is better than the alternative at the moment, and in a sense Putin, especially
his foreign policy , is executing the will of the people in Russia. Conservatives opposed Russia up until Trump because both
sides are controlled by the same Western establishment, which has been pursuing an anti-Russian agenda for a long time. They do
not want any resistance to their liberal world order.
"Democracy" is a lie and a fraud, Plato knew this 4,000 years ago, and "class consciousness" is only real in the sense that
the current situation in the West has an elite that is going against the interests of the people. I don't see how defending Russia
is "undermining class conscientious," actually arguing against the anti-Russian warmongering is a good thing. What "Russian state
attacks" are you talking about?
"To see US conservatives defending an autocracy reflects they have embraced those fascistic principles."
Do you even know how conservatism and the terms right and left wing originated? Conservatism and the right wing are terms that
are from the French Revolution, used to describe supporters of the Catholic French Monarchy of the Bourbons while the liberals
or the left were the revolutionaries. Historically Conservatives defended European Christian monarchies while the liberals always
wanted to overthrow throne and altar to replace them with secular democratic republics. In fact there is nothing more conservative
than autocracy, namely a Church-anointed monarchy. Americanism, or the ideology of the American founding fathers, was inherently
liberal. They were in revolt against the monarchy of their time. There is nothing conservative about democracy, it's quite to
the contrary. Autocracy is not "fascistic," that term is completely irrelevant in this historical context.
"Seeing similar headlines from opposite political poles exposes a 'horseshoe' phenomenon of left/right ideologies in which
the two poles are close together in significant contexts."
Are you really going to be so grug brained as to unironically bring up the horseshoe theory? Looks like we have a big brained
intellectual centrist over here. Not even worth giving an in depth analysis on this one.
Good comment. The Monarchists sat on the right side of the French assembly and the revolutionaries sat on the left. That is how
the modern spectrum morphed into Fascism (corporate state) on the right and Communism (revolutionary) on the left.
I've actually been to Russia, twice in the last year and a half, and I had a chance to meet and to converse with, and to hear
from, Russians of all sorts: academics, students, politicians, government employees, businessmen, environmentalists, scientists,
and journalists.
Based on what I saw and heard, I categorically reject your statement that Russians "are not all that free to express their
opinion."
I heard from people who are well known in Russia who disagree with Putin. I heard criticisms of the government from people
who are not well known, or who are just average people. People note that corruption is still a problem, at many levels of society
and government, but they did not seem at all reticent to make that point.
No one displayed any fear or reluctance to express his views. At the same time, Russians acknowledge a great deal of improvement
since the tragedy of the Yeltsin years.
And while there are people who criticize the government's domestic policies, they tend to be much more in support of what the
government under Putin has accomplished in terms of foreign policy. And that seems to me to be a very rational reaction.
First off I am Russian myself. Most people are in favour of an authoritarian government, nobody cares about or wants democracy.
Monarchist restoration would be ideal but Putin is good enough for now. Free press and elections are a fraud and a lie, as I said.
First of all, show me one single state on the planet today which is pro working class. Secondly, juxtaposing the concepts of working
class and fascism is just a demonstration of how badly you know the history. Suffice it to say that the set of political views
deriving from the ideas of Mussolini are called right-wing socialism. Hence, your ignorance of history logically begets that of
today's politics. No, Trump and Putin cannot be called truly pro working class. But they're at least are not so blatantly anti
working class as neolibs who oppose them.
Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism
is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention
to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model.
Except that isn't what this is about. The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not
have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is
not the issue.
But we do know from the testimonies that they oppose Trump BECAUSE he changed Ukraine policy away from the policy of confrontation
with Russia, or tried to. They are all against that and against Trump doing that, as they said. The entire establishment has opposed
Trump on this since he got elected. So let's not be disingenuous. This charade has gone on long enough. The elites want their
proxy war with Russia.
1. From my perspective, the article is saying that our Ukraine policy is immoral, not that the impeachment is not founded.
2. Further to 1. above, your pizza analogy doesn't hold up. If pizza is bad for you, eating pizza harm nobody but the eater
and the eater's insurers.
By contrast, our Ukraine policy is the support of actual live Nazis and has resulted in the deaths of numerous innocents, not
to mention the economic destruction of Ukraine.
This is more like providing one pizza company weapons and support, knowing full well that they will use those weapons and cash
to murder rivals and customers who order from those rivals.
The good news is that the influence of apparatchiks like Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor will be at an end within a few years. America
thought the blood of hundreds of thousands of foreign children was a "fair price" to pay for the dollar's continued role as a
reserve currency (Madeleine Albright's words) and cheaper gas at the pump. The effort was a bust. Endless trillion-dollar-a-year
deficits will come to an end quickly. There isn't that much liquidity in the private sphere to sop up at the price the U.S. Gov
can afford.
Americans have forgotten how much money a billion dollars is, much less a trillion: to wit, the Democrats future plans are
priced in dozens of trillions of dollars. Is it even possible to count that high (given that no one has any real idea how the
economy will react)?
Boomers destroyed the country. It only took one "me" generation to introduce such deep structural instability that there is
no recovery. Really, does anyone think a trillion dollars a year of demand can ever be pulled out of the economy? No. Does anyone
really think a trillion dollars a year will magically appear for free, from nowhere, for a decade or more? The intelligentsia
will reap the fruit of its effort within a few years. And it will be dried cat food for dinner. Bless them!
What "actual bloody invasion" of Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, and got a bloody nose
for their trouble. They didn't lose any territory however, which is odd, if Russia were the attacker.
If Russia had actually invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army would be obliterated in days or hours. Note how there are
some 500 miles of open border between Donbass and Sumskaya Oblast - but no fighting? Do you think that the Russian military doesn't
know the geography of their own border?
Ukraine was already devided before it separated from USSR. People from western Ukraine called Russians and eastern Ukrainians
moskali. Eastern Ukraine spoke mostly Russian, western Ukraine spoke mostly Ukrainian. I believe tension escalated after Russia
was about to loose access to the Black Sea and its navy there. Sorry. That was a big mistake to even think that it would happen
easy. Russia annexed Crimea from Ottoman Empire in 18th century. Since then it was part of Russia. Khrushchev transferred it to
Ukrainian republic in 1954. You seriously believe that Russia would easy let it go after almost 2 centuries of its presence there?
Big chunk of Russian history associated with Black Sea Fleet.
The invasions were in response to them trying to acquire NATO memberships and NATO egging then on to do this and provoke Russia.
If they remain in the Russian sphere than that would not be a problem.
NATO goes where it was warned not to go, provokes the response it knew it would get, and claims that this is "aggression."
What a joke.
There was no "Russian meddling", that was debunked. There is no evidence that the DNC was hacked and the so called troll farm
had no connection to the Russian government and was merely a business marketing firm selling advertising space on their social
media pages.
Russia doesn't poison dissidents in foreign countries, if you are referring to the Skripal case, that narrative has fallen
apart, multiple journalists have written lengthy pieces about all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the UK government's
narrative. Not to mention Yulia Skripal said she's still wants to go back to Russia, so clearly she doesn't think Russia poisoned
her.
We do have evidence to the show the opposite. The only ones who examined the DNC servers are a firm that was caught lying about
Russian hacking before and is owned by a Ukrainian millionaire that donated to the Clinton Foundation. Can't get more damning
than that.
What are you even talking about? The DNC refused to allow the server to be examined because they know there was no Russian hacking,
and why would Trump privately ask Zelensky to investigate Ukraine's role in all of this if he knew he were guilty? The point is
there is no evidence to prove Russian hacking, and the only claims come from a firm that is owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who
has been caught lying about Russian hacking before and donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
How much mental gymnastics are you going to use to try to pretend like you don't understand?
Which is more aggressive, do you think -- invading one's neighbors, or "dangling the prospect of NATO membership" for them?
The US engineered and supported a coup in Ukraine to overthrow the constitutional government. Is this aggression? It seems
so to me. It certainly preceded any Russian response. As far as NATO membership for Ukraine, polls of Ukrainian opinion long before
the Maidan showed very strong feeling against Ukraine joining NATO.
I believe, when all facts fail, that the way through to some would be pointing out the absurdities of what they hear therefore
think. It might make them think twice before publicly embarassing themselves.
The Western actions are more aggressive, because they actually happened...
Russia's annexation of the Crimea was bloodless, and doubtless spared it the carnage that the regime in Kiev wrought in Donbass.
America's movements since the end of the Cold War have been consistently offensive in nature, and Russia's consistently defensive
in nature.
That defense has included counterattacks, feints, and opportunistic thrusts. In every 'attack' it made, Russia was reacting,
not taking the initiative.For their part the liberal hegemonists know what they're doing. Good PR is priceless, and they know it's essential for offensive
movements to not appear that way.
Problem is, you liberals are still unable to prove a single allegation of those you uttered in your comment.
How come the previous Ukrainian government didn't manage to beg one single satellite pic of, say, Russian tanks crossing their
border from the CIA or the DIA, given the purported "bloody invasion"? Russian armored vehicles have some cloaking devices or
what?
How come the Mueller's so-called "investigation" turned out to be such a pathetic juridical failure, given the purported "direct
meddling"?
What a naive poor dear one has to be to believe in poisonings with radioactive substances (as dangerous to the poisoner as
to his victim) in a world where poisons causing deaths looking like those from natural causes exist and are available to all secret
services (and even to private citizens having talents in chemistry)?
Plus, careful with (ab)using upper case. "Democratical countries" with a capital "D" reads like "countries, whose governments
are proxies of the Democratic Party". Blame Freud and his slips.
I love people like you. I mean since we were invaded by Germany, Napoleon, Charles the Tenth of Sweden, the Teutonic Knights,
the Golden Horde (Ghengis Khan started this), at the cost of countless millions of lives lost, I sense that we- as Americans-
have every need to push our frontiers to Russia's doorstep.
You demonstrate a phenomenal ignorance of Historical perspective: exactly the cannon fodder the establishment's looking for.
Nice and sober account. One detail that might be significant. Until 1954, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation (the Russian
State has wrestled that territory from the Tatars/Mongols and Ottomans more than 200 years before and fought for it against the
united Europe in 1850s). And Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, had bestowed Crimea in an unsanctioned administrative decision to
the then Ukrainian Socialist Republic in 1954.
Ukraine as a state is pretty much a creation of Russia and instead of being grateful for their extensive statehood, elements
in Ukraine would rather bite the hand that made them.
Lots of people all over the world get up and go to work. They do it in democracies, autocracies, and countries that are somewhere
in between. In fact, the United States is losing its position as global economic hegemon in large part because the Chinese (no
democracy there) are harder working than Americans.
The United States currency has value for two reasons - inside the United States, it's the only way you can pay taxes. Outside
the United States, the gulfie tyrannies only accept dollars for international sales of oil.
$5 billion thrown down the Ukraine rat hole. It is too bad that the money wasn't spent providing better care for our wounded veterans.
Watch the video "Delay, Deny, Hope They Die". As one of the very few, perhaps only, commentater who has criticized Victoria Nuland's
role in the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, I have made many of the same points in recent days.
You know that is dishonest. This has nothing to do with what Trump tried to tell Zelensky, and anyway the US and Ukraine do in
fact have a treaty from 1998 that mandates them to cooperate on law enforcement matters. DC is full of corruption but none of
it is ever punished, so we know that is not the issue.
This is all about Trump's desire to end the proxy war with Russia. That is all this is about ultimately. Looking at the big
picture, that is a large part of the reason why the establishment wants to delegitimization him or remove Trump from office. This
phone call scandal is nothing more than the latest tactical move to get there. If you don't see that, and you genuinely think
that this is merely about Trump asking Zelensky to investigate something and get caught up in the minutiae of that, you are simply
naive and don't understand the true nature of politics. Think about the big picture.
A proxy war is nice cover for weapons smuggling. I've postulated for awhile now that Benghazi is the key to Deep State. Ask yourself
why the Obama administration allowed Stevens and his cohorts to die when there was ample air and naval power nearby. What did
he stumble upon? I think it was a vast smuggling operation designed to support Muslim Bros. and Al Shabbab-both of whom later
attacked US assets and who continue to worry the region with their raids of kidnappings, rapes and mass murders that go largely
unreported in the US press. There's a reason why so many liberals her and abroad claim to support open borders and it has nothing
to do with humanitarian goals and everything to do with an organized global crime group who is using sievelike borders to allow
drugs, fake licensed products, fake pharmaceuticals, weapons and even humans to become trade goods. People should really ask why
Democrats refuse to stop this. Europeans should ask who is getting rich off of unchecked migration of indigent people.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the
most blatant coup in history".
Exactly. This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan
government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also
made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
This is true, all of this could have easily been avoided if the US stopped meddling and withdrew its troops from the former USSR.
People like Taylor and Kent show there is an agenda to start a war with Russia. Hopefully the upcoming Ukraine-Russia peace summit
can settle this conflict.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
That's a strawman and there's nothing to refute, the article is correct. Because the US government and CFR globalist thinkers
like Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Friedman, and George Soros have talked about the geopolitical importance of Ukraine since the
1990s -- read Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard from 1996, where talks about the need for the US to take control of Ukraine from Russia
to prevent Russia from becoming a great power that can challenge US global hegemony, or Soros' admission on a 60 Minutes interview
from 1998 that he has invested billions in Ukraine, particularly in the Ukrainian military. As Brzezinski says, the US was quick
to recognise the geopolitical importance of an independent Ukrainian state, and became one of Ukraine's strongest backers in the
1990s for this reason. Globalist plans for Ukraine go back many years.
Polls before the Maidan show most Ukrainians had a very positive image of Russia as well, and increasingly people in Ukraine
are getting tired of the war, which is why they voted massively for Zelensky over Poroshenko.
When I look at our foreign policy, before Trump, you have to go back to Reagan to have any semblance of policy based in reality.
While Trump is kinda of a bull in a china shop, at least he highlights some of the asinine policies the 'experts' have been pursuing.
Russia's objection to US and EU interference into Ukrainian politics makes as much sense as US objection. would if Russia were
in Mexico attempting to draw them into a confederation with Moscow.
He may be as immoral as hell. Most of them, R or D, are, in case you haven't noticed. The fact is, there's still no factual evidence
he committed any impeachable in this specific case.
So, if the employees of the government who are involved in international affairs do not agree with the President, the President
is accused of an impeachable offense? These two are not patriots in the usual sense. Nor are they public servants. They see themselves
as somehow above the Law. Above the Constitution. Applauded by those trying ever since the election to bring down a President.
Seditionists.
The last 30 years has been a complete disaster for US foreign diplomacy. We are being led by complete morons! Trump is a big step
in the right direction.
The fact is, it was a U.S. sponsored coup by the Obama administration that overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine.
Here is the Feb 2015 Obama CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria...note that Obama says 'Yanukovich fleeing AFTER we brokered a deal
to transition power in Ukraine'...incredible. Play
Hide
Why is it wrong and improper to know whether or not a presidential candidate's family was involved in corrupt dealings abroad?
But that's not even the question, because the issue of what Trump may or may not have done is not the real issue. DC is full of
corruption and none of it is ever punished, so we know that's not what they care about. What this is about is Trump's disagreement
with the establishment on Russia-Ukraine policy and the greater geopolitical picture. Thinking this is about some minutiae over
who said what on a phone call and what he mayor may not have really meant is naive and ignorant of the true nature of politics.
These situations are not compartmentalised, these have to be seen from the the big picture of geopolitics.
He sensible policy would be to Finlandize Ukraine and Byelorus. NATO would not have them as members and Russia would let them
pursue economic ties with Europe. This worked for Finland through put the Cold War and kept the region peaceful
This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all
the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief.
That's a problem.
When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he
invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. Why? Who is Vindman reporting to if not the President? Too many of these folks
act as if the change in administrations is merely a formality to which they can choose to embrace or not. Almost without exception,
we have seen testimony from people whose personal history is in the Russian/Ukraine theater and who have family and history there.
This is problematic. If anyone ever looked and sounded the part of a mole, it was Vindman today.
These maniacs are provoking nuclear war.
They fail to understand that, unlike 50 years ago when America had a decentralized industrial economy and banking system, 2
large nukes aimed at NYC and DC would destroy the country.
This is the only conservative site worth reading. I do love me some serious and deep analysis from Conservatives in important
geopolitical issues. God for a return to the days of Buckley. It would be glorious.
Fantastic analysis of the 3D chess game. But we are talking about Biden and Clinton so we need not overthink this. Obama gave
1 billion of taxpayer money to Ukraine. Ukraine gave Burisma some of that according the government of the UK. And once Burisma
was in receipt of our aid funds, millions flow through right back to the very same bad actors like Biden who directly controlled
the one billion in foreign aid. I wish this was more complicated. I wish it made Americans seem smarter. But to this old guy it
seems like a good old fashioned and very simple run of the mill scam . And in this scam the only person we know for fact cashed
the checks is Biden.
Come on Barr. It's time to do what we all know what needs to be done.
"But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that
the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18
trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6
trillion?"
An excellent question. The cold war is over. We won. We don't need to keep fighting it. Russia is not that much of a threat
to us.
Think about it. Our State Department has been in operation for well over 100 years in some form or another. Are we ANY safer?
Fire them all. No pension for failure.
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding US values and psychology are not his strong
suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point among US policymakers.
-- Henry A. Kissinger in 2014 at the start of the Ukraine crisis (writing in the Washington Post.)
I cannot believe that the State Department was unaware of the intertwined history of Russia and the Ukraine or rather given State's
rigid worldview I can believe it. The Russians knew perfectly well that the United States was pulling the strings of the so-called
Maidan revolution and that the end would be to plant Nato and the EU right on Russia's doorstep.
Previous attempts to push Nato into parts of the south of the former Soviet empire had been fought off. Nothing could be more
predictable than that the Kremlin would do everything it could to oppose what it saw as hostile interference in the Ukraine on
behalf of "reformers". The US plays by the same rules. Cuba and the earlier Monroe doctrine are prize exhibits.
Obama slotted temperamentally into the State Department worldview or maybe it was the other way round. It was a worldview that
got the Middle East profoundly wrong at every turn including misundertanding the Arab Spring, support for the deeply anti-Western
Muslim Brotherhood, the appeasement and promotion of Iran, the abandonment of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran, the destruction
of Libya as a going concern and how to tackle Syria. If there was an opportunity to get something wrong, Obama and the bow ties
managed it. They left behind a trail of wreckage.
Worst of all, Obama, the great opponent of nuclear proliferation, turned out to be its greatest enabler but ensured that he
would be long out of office when it happened and the media started asking "who lost Iran?" If Obama achieved one thing, it was
finally to kill off nuclear non-proliferation as a viable ambition. A nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to its neighours. It is
a direct missile threat to the EU which has happily collaborated in advancing Iranian power.
Unsurprisingiy, Trump rejected all this and it is for this that he is vilified by the foreign police dinosaurs who try to delude
the nation into believing that even when what they do ends in manifest disaster, there is no alternative. There is hardly a word
leaked by the foreign policy to the willingly ignorant media that is not a lie. The mess is theirs and they hate Trump for wakening
Americans up to their self-serving, somnolent incompetence.
The usual response to posts like this is to accuse the writer of being a traitrous Putin lover. On the contrary, know thy enemy.
The maxim doesn't mean have a beer with him. It means understand him.
Excellent statement of the "Thucydides trap" argument for caution regarding Russia and its traditional sphere of concern. But
Merry leaves us with a cliffhanger: what is the sound US Russian policy given his concerns and cautions? Moreover, his rendition
is vulnerable to a counterargument, namely, that Putin's Russia has gone far beyond the seizure or control of "protective lands"
towards an encirclement or menacing of Europe. This can be seen unfolding in Russia's military presence on Syria's (and potentially
Libya's) Mediterranean coast, its sale of weapons to Turkey, its connivance with Iran's Middle Eastern proxy wars, and the potential
for petro-blackmail of its energy customers. Add to this the affirmative case for European interest in Poland, whose capital Warsaw
is exposed to attack from its eastern and southern flanks just as Moscow is immediately threatened from its western and southern
flanks. Perhaps all this just confirms how far down the path to the "Thucydides trap" the principal parties have traveled. Yet,
all the same, on what grounds do we rationalize Russian inroads into the Mediterranean? Free navigation of the seas?
I like this article but Russia is no longer a declining power technically. It's GDP is slowly rising again in the last few years.
They did take a hit from sanctions and low oil prices but they are staring to recover to some degree.
Russians like Putin because their economy is much better now than it was during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The problem this country has with Russia is that they were a declining power and now are back on the rise. China is more of
a threat but the imbeciles in the establishment keep focusing on trying to undermine Russian security. They seem to really believe
Putin is their enemy without realizing the overwhelming majority of Russians have issues with our stupid foreign policy.
Google Russian GDP, especially through time, and you'll see what I mean.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such. Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at
the local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
One thing that few appreciate is that US actions in the Ukraine in 2013/14 prompted Russian retaliation in the 2016 election.
The Russians had been playing by our rules. (Party of the Regions won a free and fair election in the Ukraine) and then we supported
a violent extra-constitutional takeover.The Obama administration wanted to see a repeat of the performance in Kiev, in Moscow
with Putin playing the part of Yanukovych. The Russian response was to attack the fault lines in American Society. Their ultimate
goal is to see the kind of rioting in the US that we had supported in Kiev in the Winter of 14.
American diplomacy has become dangerously simplistic and one-dimensional in outlook. Turkey bad, Kurds good. Iran bad, Israel
good. Russia bad, Ukraine and NATO good. You try talking with Russia, Iran or Turkey you'll be crucified in domestic politics.
Russia on the other hand doesn't have this simplistic view. They wisely recognize that the world is varying shades of gray.
Excellent piece. Bottom line: the Ukraine is within Russia's "sphere of influence", not ours. Not our problem. The last time a
major power attempted to insert itself within another country's sphere of influence was in 1962. Anybody remember the Cuban Missile
Crisis?
Mr. Merry is entitled to his point of view, but I find his remarks to be out of touch -- sort of like another "Chicken Kiev" speech
with the date "2019" slapped on it. Perhaps he would benefit from a couple of tours of duty in Kyiv, like George Kent and Bill
Taylor. Then he would appreciate the fact that the United States does have real interests in preserving Ukrainian sovereignty,
along with the independence of all the former Soviet states who have split off from Russia. He should also not be so quick to
characterize Kent's and Taylor's testimony. They were in Congress not to express a policy position on Russia, but to act as fact
witnesses to the potentially impeachable actions of the President and his circle. So, let's not get into conspiracy theories about
what "elites" believe. It's one short step from that to muttering darkly about the 'Deep State" and Comet Pizza.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such.
Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at the
local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
Agreed. However, an addendum, you seem to have forgotten to mention Russia's aggressive
training whales to spy on Norway, crickets to drive the US embassy in Cuba nuts, weaponizing
Masha and the bear, using Pokemon to sow the seeds of discord, contemplating on freezing up a
few states, any many others the mere thought of gets one wound up.
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
TheNew York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
This is a replay of Vietnam Communist Domino Theory. May all those neocons rest in Eternal
Hell.
Notable quotes:
"... Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to double down on it. As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression. ..."
"... I went to the front line approximately 10 times during a hot war sometimes literally as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put to use. ..."
"... Ukraine, with an enormous land mass and a large population, has the potential to be a significant force multiplier on the security side And now Ukraine is a battleground for great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to control Ukraine's leadership. ..."
"... She explained that the US-funded and fascist-led "Maidan Revolution" of 2014, which she and other State Department officials absurdly called the "Revolution of Dignity," was part of this conflict. "That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding to be a part of Europe," she declared. ..."
"... Diplomat George Kent invoked the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday, saying: ..."
"... Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States ..."
"... Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. American support in Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard. ..."
"... Kent subsequently compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian civil war to that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, Spain and France were officially at war with Great Britain, including formal declarations of war in 1778 and 1779. ..."
"... If Kent's analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with Russia. ..."
"... But when has this war ever been discussed with the American people? Was there ever a congressional vote to authorize it? ..."
"... When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces," she said, threatening the "president, or anyone else, [who] impedes or subverts the national security of the United States. ..."
"... "In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's broad plan of disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the east for five years " ..."
"... @wendy davis ..."
"... @jim p ..."
"... @lotlizard ..."
"... Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic Council ..."
' Who decided the US should fight a "hot war" with Russia? ', 23 November 2019 . Andre Damon,
wsws
"There is a saying attributed to the banker J.P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons
for what he does -- a good one and the real one ."
If the alleged "organized crime shakedown" by Trump was the "good" reason for the
impeachment inquiry, the "real" reason has emerged over two weeks of public congressional
hearings. The hearings have lifted the lid on a massive US conspiracy to spend billions of
dollars to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014 and foment a
civil war that has led to the deaths of thousands of people.
The impeachment drive is itself the product of efforts by sections of the intelligence
agencies and elements within the State Department to escalate Washington's conflict with
Russia, with potentially world-catastrophic consequences.
On Thursday, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell showed a photo of Ukrainian President
Zelensky in body armor on the "front lines" of the civil war in eastern Ukraine. He asked the
State Department witnesses "why it's so important that our hard-earned tax dollars help
President Zelensky and the men standing beside him fight Russia in this hot war?"
David Holmes, political counselor at the US embassy in Kiev, replied:
Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to
double down on it. As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory
against Russian aggression.
Later in his testimony, Holmes pointed to the massive sums expended by the United States
and its European allies to fight this "hot war," saying the US had provided $5 billion and
its European allies $12 billion since 2014.
In her testimony last week, the former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich recalled that
as ambassador:
I went to the front line approximately 10 times during a hot war sometimes literally
as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put
to use.
She added:
Ukraine, with an enormous land mass and a large population, has the potential to be
a significant force multiplier on the security side And now Ukraine is a battleground for
great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to
control Ukraine's leadership.
She explained that the US-funded and fascist-led "Maidan Revolution" of 2014, which
she and other State Department officials absurdly called the "Revolution of Dignity," was
part of this conflict. "That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding
to be a part of Europe," she declared.
Diplomat George Kent invoked the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday,
saying:
Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian
leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent
of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States
Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their
territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. American support in
Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard.
Kent subsequently compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian civil war to
that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, Spain and
France were officially at war with Great Britain, including formal declarations of war in
1778 and 1779.
If Kent's analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with
Russia.
But when has this war ever been discussed with the American people? Was there ever a
congressional vote to authorize it? Does anyone believe that if the question, "Do you
want to spend billions of dollars to help Ukraine fight a war with Russia," were posed to the
American public, the percentage answering yes would be anything more than minuscule? Of
course, that question was never asked." [snip]
"But in the congressional hearings this week, government officials declared that any
questioning of this aid is virtually treasonous. In her testimony on Thursday, former
National Security Council officer Fiona Hill accused anyone who questions that "Ukraine is a
valued partner" of the United States of advancing "Russian interests. "
" When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces,"
she said, threatening the "president, or anyone else, [who] impedes or subverts the national
security of the United States. "
In 2017, Hill penned a blog post for the Brookings Institution calling Trump a
"Bolshevik," echoing statements made more than 60 years ago by John Birch Society leader
Robert W. Welch, who declared that President Eisenhower was a "communist."
Underlying the mad allegations of the Democrats that Trump is functioning as a "Russian
asset" is a very real content: The extremely dangerous drive by factions within the state for
a military confrontation between the United States and Russia, whose combined nuclear weapons
arsenals are capable of destroying all of humanity many times over.
There is no "peace" faction within the American political establishment. No credence can
be given to either one of the parties of US imperialism, which have, over the course of
decades, presided over the toppling of dozens of governments, the launching of countless wars
and the deaths of millions of people."
Patrick Martin from his Oct. 16, 2019 ' The Trump
impeachment and US policy in Ukraine '
"This utterly reactionary, pro-imperialist role was demonstrated Friday in the tribute
that Yovanovitch paid, in the course of her testimony, to Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian
interior minister (head of the domestic police) under both the current president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, and his predecessor Petro Poroshenko. Avakov is a principal sponsor of fascist
militias such as the Azov Battalion , which glorify the Ukrainians who collaborated with the
Nazis during World War II against the Soviet Union. In other words, the State Department
officials being celebrated in the media for defending American democracy are actually working
with the fascists in Ukraine .
While Yovanovitch hailed Avakov, Kent cited as his heroes among immigrants who have
rallied to the defense of the United States Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, two of
the biggest war criminals of the second half of the twentieth century ." [snip]
""The connection between the impeachment drive and differences on foreign policy was spelled
out Friday on the front page of the New York Times, in an analysis by the newspaper's senior
foreign policy specialist, David Sanger, a frequent mouthpiece for the concerns of the CIA,
State Department and Pentagon, under the headline, " For President, Case of Policy vs.
Obsession." [snip]
But Sanger goes on to spell out, in remarkably blunt terms, the real foreign policy issues
at stake in the Trump impeachment. He writes,
"In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for
the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's broad plan of
disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the
east for five years "
Trump, according to Sanger, has betrayed the anti-Russia policy outlined by his own
administration in a Pentagon strategic assessment which declared that the "war on terror" had
been superseded as the top US priority by "great-power competition," particularly directed at
China and Russia. He sacrificed this policy to his own personal, electoral interests, as
expressed in the comment by the US ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland:
"President Trump cares more about the investigation of Biden" than about the military
conflict between Ukraine and Russia."
They'll bust both your kneecaps and then fit you with cement overshoes and toss you into
the ocean. Trump is finding out the hard way that entrenched interests in the US government
wield vast veto power over anything a president wants to do.
He's his own worst enemy with his self-sabotaging Twitter rants, endless character
assassinations, hastily burnt bridges, and conflicting statements that change based upon
the last person he talked to. Trump doesn't inspire loyalty in those who work for him and
around him. OTOH, that doesn't excuse the Deep State, an unelected cabal secretly running
our government and risking our lives with endless wars and Russia baiting. If impeachment
has shown nothing else, it's that the Deep State is real and usually gets its way.
almost all the casualties are Russian speakers in the East. Back in the early coup days
there were 37 claims that Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Which turned out to be none. I
still remember when Pravda in New York had a blurred photo they claimed to be a Russ
officer (and how do you get blurring in the digital age) which turned out to be a Ukranian
officer facebook photo. They never explained how that happened.
great context. kent's number 13,000, and yes, they were likely all Novoroosians
, if he hadn't pulled that figure out of his ass, anyway. photos of 'little green men' in
ancient soviet uniforms, old tanks left over from the days of yore.
was kent counting the dead inside the trade unions massacre in odessa petrol-bombed by
the neo-nazis?
in depth reads for later, and thank you, miz lizard. funny that the Atlantic council (at
least one version) had chosen Zelenskiy based on promises to end corruption (read: so
ukraine could have the lucre to enter Nato). and yet, he'd kept 9as per the photo caption)
Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic
Council in hi cabinet, isn't it?
be encouraged to read your stockman links to his 'The Ukrainian Influence Peddling Rings
– A Microcosm of How Imperial Washington Rolls', David Stockman,
November 13, 2019 , i'll offer a few excerpts. i rarely (if ever) call anything a 'must
read', but even you, voice, might want to dig into this one (part I of II, if i get his
drift).
i'm assumming his historical narrative is correct, as all the pieces i do know about are
there are well, but what he writes i hadn't known is key, of course. his language is also
colorful as all giddy-up, which i like, and good on him. he's lost me a bit in some
sections, as he names names, lobbying firms, and so on, but that's on me, not stockman.
"The latest dispatch from the Wall Street Journal on the stench wafting westward from
Kiev reveals more about the rotten foundation of UkraineGate than its authors probably
understood.
Burisma Holdings' campaign to clean up its image in the West reached beyond the 2014
hiring of Hunter Biden, son of the then-U.S. vice president, to include other
well-connected operatives in Washington, according to officials in both countries and
government records.
The Ukrainian company, owned by tycoon Mykola Zlochevsky, also hired a lobbyist with
close ties to then-Secretary of State John Kerry, as well as a consulting group founded
by top officials in the Clinton administration that specialized in preparing former
Soviet-bloc countries to join NATO (Blue Star Strategies).
Soon the efforts bore fruit. With the help of a New York-based lawyer, Mr.
Zlochevsky's U.S. consultants argued to Ukrainian prosecutors that criminal cases
against the company should be closed because no laws had been broken.
Burisma later became a sponsor of a Washington think tank, the Atlantic Council,
whose experts are often cited on energy and security policy in the former Soviet
Union.
Simple translation: Zlochevsky was an ally, officeholder (minister of ecology and
natural resources) and inner-circle thief in the ousted government of Viktor Yanukovych.
He therefore needed to powder the pig fast and thoroughly in order to hold onto his
ill-gotten billions.""
[longish snip of a who's who involvement]...................
"Finally, the Clinton wing of the Washington racketeering system had to be covered,
too – hence the above mentioned Blue Star Strategies. And the bolded sentence from
the WSJ story quoted below tells you all you need to know about its business, which was
to " .help former Soviet countries prepare for NATO consideration".
That's right. With the Soviet Union gone, its 50,000 tanks on the central front
melted-down for scrap and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, the rational order of the day was to
declare "mission accomplished" for NATO and effect its own disbandment.
The great parachuter and then US president, George Bush the Elder, could have actually
made a jump right into the giant Ramstein Air Base in Germany to effect its closure. At
that point there was no justification for NATO's continued existence whatsoever.
But the Clinton Administration, under the baleful influence of Washington busybodies
like Strobe Talbot and Madeleine Albright, went in just the opposite direction. In
pursuit of Washington's post-1991 quest for global hegemony as the world's only
superpower and putative keeper of the peace, they prepared the way for the entirety of
the old Warsaw Pact to join NATO.
So doing, however, they also laid the planking for a revival of the cold war with the
Kremlin. As the father of containment and NATO during the late 1940s, Ambassador George
Kennan, observed at the time, the Clinton Administration's policy of expanding NATO to
the very doorstep of Russia was a colossal mistake." [longish snip]
...............................
"So that's how the Imperial City rolls. People make policies which extend the Empire
while in office – as did these Clintonistas with the NATO expansion project –
and then cash-in afterwards by peddling influence in the corridors of the beltway on
behalf of Washington's newly acquired vassals and supplicants.
In this case, all roads lead to the Atlantic Council, which is the semi-official
"think tank" of NATO in Washington and is infested with Russophobes and Clinton/Biden
operatives. The latter, of course, make a handsome living peddling anti-Putin propaganda
– the better to grease the Washington purse strings for unneeded military spending
and foreign aid, security assistance and weapons sales to the "front line" states
allegedly in the path of Kremlin aggression."
thank you, miz lizard. love this title of his on the sidebar: ' Democrats Empower a Pack
of Paranoid Neocon Morons '. ; )
i'll grab part II and read it greedily when i have more time.
putting them in the context of the region's deeper past. The first two parts of a
series.
The Special Operations Detachment "Azov", often known as Azov Battalion, Azov
Regiment, or Azov Detachment, (Ukrainian: Полк
Азов) is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment,[1][2][3][4] based
in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.
In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes, as
well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment itself, as
seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the
German Nazi Party. In 2014, around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[9] In 2018, a
provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked military aid to
Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology. [10] Members of the regiment come
from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[11]
On 13 April 2014 Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov [nb 1] issued a decree
authorizing creating new paramilitary forces from civilians up to 12,000.[22] The Azov
Battalion (using "Eastern Corps" as its backbone[20]) was formed on 5 May 2014 in
Berdiansk[23] by a white nationalist.[24] Many members of Patriot of Ukraine joined the
battalion.[20] Among the early patrons of the battalion were a member of the Verkhovna
Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky and businessman Serhiy
Taruta and Avakov.[25][20] The battalion then received training near Kiev by instructors
with experience in the Georgian Armed Forces.[
In September 2014, the Azov battalion was expanded from a battalion to a regiment and
enrolled into the National Guard of Ukraine.[23][33] At about this time it started
receiving increased supplies of heavy arms.[33] The Azov battalion received funding from
the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other sources (believed to be Ukrainian
oligarchs).
As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov
Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire as
"appeasement".[33] In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the Azov
Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army troops in
their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[44][45] US training however was
withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an amendment blocking
any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its Neo-Nazi
background.[46] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House saying "I am
grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to
ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion,
along with my measures to keep the dangerous and easily trafficked MANPADs out of these
unstable regions."[45]
Since 2015 Azov is organising summer camps where children and teenagers receive
practice in civil defense and military tactics mixed with lectures on Ukrainian
nationalism.[48][20]
Since 2015 the Battalion has been upgraded to Regimental status and "Azov" is now
officially called "Special Operations Regiment" , with combat duties focused on
reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, EOD disposal, interdiction and special weapons
operations.
Foreign membership [edit]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and
professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters,[30] including
people from Brazil, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, France, America, Greece,
Scandinavia,[2][30] Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. [2][56][57] About 50
Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment.[58]
According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve in
Ukraine's military:[66] since "Azov" Regiment was granted full military status, its
foreign volunteers were compelled either to take Ukrainian citizenship, or to leave the
Regiment.
Human rights violations and war crimes[edit]
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting, unlawful
detention, and torture.[68][69] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the
organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by
Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of
Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was
documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February
2015".[68] Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and torture
Rodnovery, symbolism and neo-Nazism [edit]
Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun
Most soldiers of Azov are followers of a Ukrainian nationalist type of Rodnovery (Slavic
Native Faith), wherefrom they derive some of their symbolism (such as a variation of the
swastika symbol kolovrat). They have also established Rodnover shrines for their
religious rites, including one in Mariupol dedicated to Perun.[70][71][72][unreliable
source] German ZDF television showed images of Azov fighters wearing helmets with
swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps".[73]
Due to the use of such symbols, Azov has been considered to have connections with
neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia and expressing
Neo-Nazi views.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[78][79][80] and the Black
Sun,[78][81][82] two Nazi-era symbols adopted by neo-Nazi groups.
In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision blocking any training of
Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background. In previous years,
between 2014 and 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed amendments banning
support of Azov, but due to pressure from the Pentagon, the amendments were quietly
lifted.[87][88][89] This move has been protested by Simon Wiesenthal Center which stated
that the move highlights danger of Holocaust distortion in Ukraine.[89] On 26 June 2015,
the Canadian defence minister declared as well, that training by Canadian forces or
support would not be provided to Azov. [90]
While Azov Battalion troops have denied that the organization has any neo-Nazi or white
supremacist beliefs, journalists stated that "numerous swastika tattoos of different
members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias drawn on
their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to plausibly deny any
neo-Nazi affiliations" .[85]
no more US training? dunno what to say to that. but i plugged '2018' into a bing search
of azov torchlight parades and found this from 2016 instead (although there were some
later, as well):
Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Azov battalion [as well as Right Sector' stages torch-lit
march in Kharkov (VIDEOS)], 12 Dec, 2016 , RT.com
really according to Eva
Bartlett who'd committed journalism in the donbass independent republics, zelenskiy
hasn't been able to control them (as promised) either.
it's a good time to remember all who'd invested in the ukraine who had interest in the
Maidan putsch, isn't it?
The Special Operations Detachment "Azov", often known as Azov Battalion, Azov
Regiment, or Azov Detachment, (Ukrainian: Полк
Азов) is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment,[1][2][3][4]
based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.
In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes,
as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment
itself, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols
used by the German Nazi Party. In 2014, around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[9]
In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked
military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology. [10] Members
of the regiment come from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[11]
On 13 April 2014 Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov [nb 1] issued a decree
authorizing creating new paramilitary forces from civilians up to 12,000.[22] The
Azov Battalion (using "Eastern Corps" as its backbone[20]) was formed on 5 May 2014
in Berdiansk[23] by a white nationalist.[24] Many members of Patriot of Ukraine
joined the battalion.[20] Among the early patrons of the battalion were a member of
the Verkhovna Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky and
businessman Serhiy Taruta and Avakov.[25][20] The battalion then received training
near Kiev by instructors with experience in the Georgian Armed Forces.[
In September 2014, the Azov battalion was expanded from a battalion to a regiment
and enrolled into the National Guard of Ukraine.[23][33] At about this time it
started receiving increased supplies of heavy arms.[33] The Azov battalion received
funding from the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other sources (believed
to be Ukrainian oligarchs).
As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov
Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire
as "appeasement".[33] In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the
Azov Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army
troops in their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[44][45] US training
however was withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an
amendment blocking any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its
Neo-Nazi background.[46] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House
saying "I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my
amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the
repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, along with my measures to keep the dangerous and
easily trafficked MANPADs out of these unstable regions."[45]
Since 2015 Azov is organising summer camps where children and teenagers receive
practice in civil defense and military tactics mixed with lectures on Ukrainian
nationalism.[48][20]
Since 2015 the Battalion has been upgraded to Regimental status and "Azov" is now
officially called "Special Operations Regiment" , with combat duties focused on
reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, EOD disposal, interdiction and special
weapons operations.
Foreign membership [edit]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and
professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters,[30]
including people from Brazil, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, France, America,
Greece, Scandinavia,[2][30] Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. [2][56][57]
About 50 Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment.[58]
According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve
in Ukraine's military:[66] since "Azov" Regiment was granted full military status,
its foreign volunteers were compelled either to take Ukrainian citizenship, or to
leave the Regiment.
Human rights violations and war crimes[edit]
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting,
unlawful detention, and torture.[68][69] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that
the organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities
by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of
Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was
documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and
February 2015".[68] Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and
torture
Rodnovery, symbolism and neo-Nazism [edit]
Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun
Most soldiers of Azov are followers of a Ukrainian nationalist type of Rodnovery
(Slavic Native Faith), wherefrom they derive some of their symbolism (such as a
variation of the swastika symbol kolovrat). They have also established Rodnover
shrines for their religious rites, including one in Mariupol dedicated to
Perun.[70][71][72][unreliable source] German ZDF television showed images of Azov
fighters wearing helmets with swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous
black-uniformed elite corps".[73] Due to the use of such symbols, Azov has been
considered to have connections with neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS
symbols and regalia and expressing Neo-Nazi views.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[78][79][80] and the Black
Sun,[78][81][82] two Nazi-era symbols adopted by neo-Nazi groups.
In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision blocking any
training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background. In
previous years, between 2014 and 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
amendments banning support of Azov, but due to pressure from the Pentagon, the
amendments were quietly lifted.[87][88][89] This move has been protested by Simon
Wiesenthal Center which stated that the move highlights danger of Holocaust
distortion in Ukraine.[89] On 26 June 2015, the Canadian defence minister declared as
well, that training by Canadian forces or support would not be provided to Azov.
[90]
While Azov Battalion troops have denied that the organization has any neo-Nazi or
white supremacist beliefs, journalists stated that "numerous swastika tattoos of
different members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias
drawn on their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to
plausibly deny any neo-Nazi affiliations" .[85]
It's great that Ukraine's revisionist far-right politics are at least getting some
attention in the press. But what you won't read in these reports is that the U.S.
government had recently sponsored a "cultural" exhibit that celebrated the Nazi
collaborator who is now getting his own street in Kiev. You can't make this stuff up!
But we have to help the Nazis because Putin's Russia is invading and we owe it to them
to.... blehh!
yasha levine commits good journalism, there too! i'd never even heard of Nil Khasevych
nor his Kil the Jews wood block prints. zelenskiy is not only jewish, but russian speaking,
ukrainian is his second language as i understand it.
imagine now living on Khasevych; wouldn't you be proud? i'd been on yasha's account
recently looking for his take (if any) on the intercept/NYT collaboration on the Iranaian
leaks. i'd figured his link to the history if U S meddling at the bottom would speak at
length about Pierre Omidyar's investments (centre UA, USAID, etc.) and maybe (then)
monsanto/billy gates.
thank you; a whoosh -worthy exposé. do you get his newsletter,
snoop?
p.s. on edit: i tried to subscribe, but it costs money. oh, well...
It's great that Ukraine's revisionist far-right politics are at least getting some
attention in the press. But what you won't read in these reports is that the U.S.
government had recently sponsored a "cultural" exhibit that celebrated the Nazi
collaborator who is now getting his own street in Kiev. You can't make this stuff
up!
But we have to help the Nazis because Putin's Russia is invading and we owe it to
them to.... blehh!
There is lots of good info on Twitter about the Ukraine system and corruption. Bibi
didn't have any problems dealing with the neo Nazis there either which threw me for a loop.
But then it was people in our country that made Hitler's war chest. Bush Sr., Ford and lots
of others thought Hitler's system should be implemented here. Oh yeah and of course the
banks..
Yasha Levine commits good journalism, there too! i'd never even heard of Nil
Khasevych nor his Kil the Jews wood block prints. zelenskiy is not only jewish, but
russian speaking, ukrainian is his second language as i understand it.
imagine now living on Khasevych; wouldn't you be proud? i'd been on yasha's account
recently looking for his take (if any) on the intercept/NYT collaboration on the
Iranaian leaks. i'd figured his link to the history if U S meddling at the bottom would
speak at length about Pierre Omidyar's investments (centre UA, USAID, etc.) and maybe
(then) monsanto/billy gates.
thank you; a whoosh -worthy exposé. do you get his newsletter,
snoop?
p.s. on edit: i tried to subscribe, but it costs money. oh, well...
especially with the editing. but it' like the game of telephone, isn't it? 'he told me
he overheard...', and someone told me s he heard..., yada, yada,
but just think if Pelosi hadn't limited the inquiry to One Phone call? 'as trump's
puppet, is zelenskiy's claiming 'no quid pro quo worth anything?'
There is lots of good info on Twitter about the Ukraine system and corruption. Bibi
didn't have any problems dealing with the neo Nazis there either which threw me for a
loop. But then it was people in our country that made Hitler's war chest. Bush Sr.,
Ford and lots of others thought Hitler's system should be implemented here. Oh yeah and
of course the banks..
Nah not so much. Numerous websites wrote about it back when it happened just like they
wrote about Hunter Biden and Burisma. But now I'm seeing the main stream media trying to
tell us that it didn't happen that way. Well here's one article that hasn't been scrubbed
yet.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly
working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating
a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging
information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to
expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to
people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's
resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally
directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Ahh that good ole but. Yes what people in Ukraine did was bad, but.... and here's the
but.
Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved
the country's military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S.
intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that
Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a
Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
said " I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to
interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case."
There's little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers
suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the
country -- not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia -- would render it unable to
pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country's election. And
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.
Yet Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
Well there you have it. People in Ukraine were digging up dirt on people in Trump's
campaign whilst Vlad only placed a few ads on FB and most of them were placed after the
election was over. Badder Russia.
That Ukraine was trying to get Hillary elected was well known in the Ukraine government,
but sure let's just say it never happened like that. Then of course there was Hillary
hiring people in another country to dig up dirt too, but that doesn't count. Why? Reasons
of course and because it was Hillary and the DNC doing it. See? Reasons.
Next paragraph starts with this.
Russia's meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. Lots of words
about how that outraged people here...and more blah blah blah stuff.
Next paragrap
Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S.
administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has
privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about
Poroshenko's regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin's regime.
Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month
contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings
with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."
Hmm hint of a quid pro quo there?
BTW. Lindsay Graham wants to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe says that he will regret
doing that for the rest of his life. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
Ahh yes Russia was the one that started that propaganda. Burisma and Biden was always on
the up and up so don't even think that they weren't. I really don't know how people who
believe everything about Russia Gate and now Ukraine Gate can keep their beliefs intact
when there is so much information showing that what they believe is wrong or didn't happen
the way they think it did.
Nah not so much. Numerous websites wrote about it back when it happened just like
they wrote about Hunter Biden and Burisma. But now I'm seeing the main stream media
trying to tell us that it didn't happen that way. Well here's one article that hasn't
been scrubbed yet.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after
quietly working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump
by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents
implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the
matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies
research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation
found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort
to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according
to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's
resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or
centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic
emails.
Ahh that good ole but. Yes what people in Ukraine did was bad, but.... and here's
the but.
Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,
involved the country's military and foreign intelligence services, according
to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the
possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the
president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper said " I don't think we've ever encountered a
more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've
seen in this case."
There's little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers
suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the
country -- not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia -- would render it unable to
pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country's election. And
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.
Yet Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in
the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments
refrain from engaging in one another's elections.
Well there you have it. People in Ukraine were digging up dirt on people in Trump's
campaign whilst Vlad only placed a few ads on FB and most of them were placed after the
election was over. Badder Russia.
That Ukraine was trying to get Hillary elected was well known in the Ukraine
government, but sure let's just say it never happened like that. Then of course there
was Hillary hiring people in another country to dig up dirt too, but that doesn't
count. Why? Reasons of course and because it was Hillary and the DNC doing it. See?
Reasons.
Next paragraph starts with this.
Russia's meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. Lots of words
about how that outraged people here...and more blah blah blah stuff.
Next paragrap
Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S.
administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has
privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about
Poroshenko's regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin's
regime.
Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month
contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings
with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."
Hmm hint of a quid pro quo there?
BTW. Lindsay Graham wants to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe says that he will
regret doing that for the rest of his life. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
this morning intending to grab some of his quotes and links here: ' November
20, 2019 , Impeachment Circus - Today's Bombshell Is Another Dud one chris cilizza link
i'd given to linda wood to see if she or others might parse for me/us.
"The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid opening statement
from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was involved in diplomatic
efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let it all out:
'Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the
pressure campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link
between military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland
confirmed there was a "clear quid pro quo" for a White House meeting between President
Trump and Ukraine's president.'
The
anti-Trump media see this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.
But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those
involved on his side.
Ahh yes Russia was the one that started that propaganda. Burisma and Biden was
always on the up and up so don't even think that they weren't. I really don't know how
people who believe everything about Russia Gate and now Ukraine Gate can keep their
beliefs intact when there is so much information showing that what they believe is
wrong or didn't happen the way they think it did.
Almost everything Americans have ever been told about US foreign policy is a lie. Almost
everything we think we know is still a lie.
The Democrat's immediate goal is to install Mike Pence as President as soon as
possible.
Everything depends on this. Pence is the continuation of Obama's Neocon policies in
Ukraine and throughout the world. Biden is the premier Neocon on the 2020 ticket. His job
is to lie himself into the nomination and pick-up a Neocon Vice President. If he loses to
Pence, it doesn't matter. The CFR wins either way. And we're off to war with Russia.
This is a must read for those who want to know what is happening to them. And happening
fast.
It will be hard to see the world the same way again.
as with a hella busy 3-day weekend, i hadn't intended to, but what with the smoke
coming out of my ears and all...
i'd long claimed that i'd want to go out in a first strike as well, and here we are
just east of the shit-head capital of bumfuck, CO (h/t ed abbey).
now there are a number of NORAD
sites , but most nations as i understand it still have No First Strike Rules, but
the US no longer does, iirc (meaning: don't count on it). our daughter and her family
live in el paso county, CO home of one or two, one an alt-site under cheyenne
mountain.
i've often been a bit glib as to: 'Who will stop the US Empire? Those who can...and
must.'
but i dunno who that might end up being, nor how including with nukes. but at this
point, i guess it's all philosophical to me, as we're all living on borrowed time, and
Live in the Moment when possible.
i do so wish i could help you ease your fears, my friend.
there's no way i can read anything that long, especially in the zero-hedge format. but i
found it at the duran, and an easier read on my eye-brain configuration at the
saker . strategic culture usually carries his columns, but not this one...yet.
even scanning at the zero hedge version, i hadn't spotted pence's name. in which part
(I-IV) was it? zuesse has always needed a good editor, imo. but yeah, Pentecostal Pence
gives me the shivers.
Almost everything Americans have ever been told about US foreign policy is a lie.
Almost everything we think we know is still a lie.
The Democrat's immediate goal is to install Mike Pence as President as soon as
possible.
Everything depends on this. Pence is the continuation of Obama's Neocon policies in
Ukraine and throughout the world. Biden is the premier Neocon on the 2020 ticket. His
job is to lie himself into the nomination and pick-up a Neocon Vice President. If he
loses to Pence, it doesn't matter. The CFR wins either way. And we're off to war with
Russia.
This is a must read for those who want to know what is happening to them. And
happening fast.
It will be hard to see the world the same way again.
i read the comments on the saker version, what was key was what zuesse hadn't written
(i.e. any mention of the CIA), and part IV at the duran,, withut elaborating, much of which
i disagreed with.
there's no way i can read anything that long, especially in the zero-hedge format.
but i found it at the duran, and an easier read on my eye-brain configuration
at the
saker . strategic culture usually carries his columns, but not this one...yet.
even scanning at the zero hedge version, i hadn't spotted pence's name. in which
part (I-IV) was it? zuesse has always needed a good editor, imo. but yeah, Pentecostal
Pence gives me the shivers.
@Pluto's Republic or New York for sure. There are a lot of other target rich areas
like Langley, the Silicon Valley area and certainly that big base in San Diego in
California, the possible list is long because this Country is littered with military
installations.
But I'd expect that if Russia had only two nukes to fire Washington DC and NY would be
the instant decision. DC is 'evil Central' to most of the world, and NY City's Wall Street
is its oxygen supply and without those two cities it's like chopping off the head of the
snake. (no offense to snakes intended)
It fills the soul with dread. There is no one left to fight the poisonous empire
from the inside. All have succumbed. They will be along soon enough to clean up these
fragments and send them down the memory hole. I'm going to dwell in the large-target
cities from now on. I intend to be vaporized in the first strike.
are brilliant and vital to understanding the Ukraine situation. I think Part 2 is most
important, even though I disagree with him on one point. He establishes how stupid and
moronic the Democrats' impeachment witnesses are to suggest we have to fight Russia in
Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here. He shows how minuscule Russia's conventional
weapons systems are compared to ours, especially with respect to sea and air power, and
then he states,
... Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military
establishment anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current $750
billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a
continuation of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got
through 45-years of cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy
committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via
a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the
military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian
"stans" among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the
self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go
mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is
laughable. Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the
extent of what he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the
North American continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts
and nothing.
I agree with Stockman that in a conventional war with the U.S., we win. But that's just
exactly the problem. Russia can't have a conventional war with us or with NATO. It's
defense from us is ONLY nuclear assured destruction. So the problem is not whether or not
he's nuts. The problem is that we are nuts. Our government is nuts. Our government has a
first strike policy, meaning our government considers it rational to eliminate a portion of
the American people, which in our Nuclear Posture Review would be catastrophic, in order to
win a war with Russia.
... The NPR argues that additional low-yield options are "not intended to enable"
nuclear war-fighting "[n]or will it lower the nuclear threshold" (p. 54). But this
assertion ignores the fact that the stated purpose is to make their use "more credible"
in the eyes of U.S. adversaries , which means that they are meant to be seen as "more
usable."
The belief that a nuclear conflict could be controlled is dangerous thinking. The fog
of war is thick, the fog of nuclear war would be even thicker. Such thinking could also
have the perverse effect of convincing Russia that it could get away with limited nuclear
use without putting its survival at risk.
Many military targets are in or near urban areas. It has been estimated that the use
of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of tens of
millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds of millions
and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural, economic, health,
and environmental consequences for billions of people.
No country should be preparing to wage a "limited nuclear war" that neither side can
guarantee would remain "limited." Rather, as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev declared in 1985, today's Russian and U.S. leaders should recognize that "a
nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
and i agree: it's not the defense budget that matters. in this nation, the defense
industries are allowed to do 'cost over-runs', and russia's weapons of war and defensive
war are clearly superior. see how many are wanting russian man-pads missile defense, for
instance.
i'll take part two, but at anti-war.com to the café. commenter juliania loved
part I witless! i was sad to read that justin raimondo has already crossed over, may he
rest in power. one place i'd blogged for a time were outraged i tell you, Outraged, that a
libertarian wrote for antiwar.com. needless to say, i didn't last long at the
accursed dagblog.com.
are brilliant and vital to understanding the Ukraine situation. I think Part 2 is
most important, even though I disagree with him on one point. He establishes how stupid
and moronic the Democrats' impeachment witnesses are to suggest we have to fight Russia
in Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here. He shows how minuscule Russia's
conventional weapons systems are compared to ours, especially with respect to sea and
air power, and then he states,
... Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military
establishment anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion
of military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland
security in America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a
continuation of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got
through 45-years of cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy
committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth
via a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to
the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian
"stans" among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the
self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to
go mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is
laughable. Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is
the extent of what he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force
to the North American continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere
between nichts and nothing.
I agree with Stockman that in a conventional war with the U.S., we win. But that's
just exactly the problem. Russia can't have a conventional war with us or with NATO.
It's defense from us is ONLY nuclear assured destruction. So the problem is not whether
or not he's nuts. The problem is that we are nuts. Our government is nuts. Our
government has a first strike policy, meaning our government considers it rational to
eliminate a portion of the American people, which in our Nuclear Posture Review would
be catastrophic, in order to win a war with Russia.
... The NPR argues that additional low-yield options are "not intended to enable"
nuclear war-fighting "[n]or will it lower the nuclear threshold" (p. 54). But this
assertion ignores the fact that the stated purpose is to make their use "more
credible" in the eyes of U.S. adversaries , which means that they are meant to be
seen as "more usable."
The belief that a nuclear conflict could be controlled is dangerous thinking. The
fog of war is thick, the fog of nuclear war would be even thicker. Such thinking
could also have the perverse effect of convincing Russia that it could get away with
limited nuclear use without putting its survival at risk.
Many military targets are in or near urban areas. It has been estimated that the
use of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of
tens of millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds
of millions and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural,
economic, health, and environmental consequences for billions of people.
No country should be preparing to wage a "limited nuclear war" that neither side
can guarantee would remain "limited." Rather, as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev declared in 1985, today's Russian and U.S. leaders should recognize that "a
nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
"... They don't need to convince activist Democrats that Trump needs to go. The most vocal have demanded it since 2016, even before inauguration. Others have joined them more recently. Polls show some independent voters are moving in their direction, fueled by an intense media campaign. So far, however, the numbers are not nearly enough to isolate Trump (as Nixon was isolated) or to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict him. The upper chamber needs a lot more incriminating evidence and so does the public. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The best way to understand the speaker's true aim is to ask 'how would Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by impeachment?' ..."
"... It's not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been entirely shut out of the process ..."
"... More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker's gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters' central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials couldn't accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. ..."
"... This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020. Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a 'do nothing' Congress controlled by 'radical socialists'. Democrats will run against a 'corrupt, erratic, self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.' ..."
The most important thing to know about Democrats' impeachment inquiry is this: it is
not about removing President Trump now; it is about damaging him now so he can be
defeated next year.
Impeachment normally seeks to remove the president (or a federal judge) from office. A
successful House vote is only the first step. The Senate needs strong evidence to convict, and
House leaders try to provide it with their investigation and public hearings. That's what we
learned in seventh-grade civics.
But Nancy Pelosi is not in middle school. She is teaching postgraduate courses, and she
knows a Republican Senate is very unlikely to convict Donald Trump without a lot more evidence
than has been brought to light along with a groundswell of public support. So, the House
speaker has a more realistic goal, and it's a purely political one. Her aim is to prevent
Trump's reelection. To do it, she has exerted tight, unilateral control over the process and
handed day-to-day investigation to her California protégé, Adam Schiff, who heads
the committee on intelligence. His secret hearings are in sharp contrast to the open ones held
for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee.
Schiff's closed-door sessions, his refusal to allow Republicans to call witnesses, and his
prohibition of White House participation are all clear indications of Pelosi's strategy. She
and Schiff are using the investigation as publicly funded opposition research, complete with
subpoena power, much like the probe that resulted in the second volume of Robert Mueller's
report.
They don't need to convince activist Democrats that Trump needs to go. The most vocal
have demanded it since 2016, even before inauguration. Others have joined them more recently.
Polls show some independent voters are moving in their direction, fueled by an intense media
campaign. So far, however, the numbers are not nearly enough to isolate Trump (as Nixon was
isolated) or to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict him. The upper chamber needs a lot
more incriminating evidence and so does the public.
The Democrats have promised that material before but failed to deliver. Last year, Schiff
claimed he had proof of Trump's malfeasance, but he couldn't deliver. Jerry Nadler, chair of
the Judiciary Committee, tried to find something -- anything -- but failed and turned his
committee into a partisan food fight. The Democrats and their media allies had counted on
Robert Mueller, but that didn't work out, either. None of these failures means the Democrats,
Washington Post , or New York Times won't find more compelling evidence this
time, but the track record is not encouraging.
So far, all they've got is a questionable phone call from the president to his Ukrainian
counterpart, a pause in aid to Ukraine (which Kyiv didn't know about and had no practical
effect), and a hyperbolic, second-hand complaint from an anonymous CIA operative. The spy, who
worked with then-Vice President Biden, claimed whistleblower protection under suspiciously new
rules and worked with Schiff's staff to report it. (Schiff lied about this contact.) We don't
know the name of the whistleblower or who else he may have spoken with, aside from his
attorneys. We don't know which CIA officers at the White House passed along the information or
whether they will seek whistleblower protection to cover their unauthorized disclosures of
classified information.
The whistleblower allegations and Rudy Giuliani's ties to now-indicted Ukrainians raise
serious questions about the president's conduct. Polls show the public is concerned. But
'concerned' does not mean 'convinced'. Voters want clear-cut evidence of high crimes before
removing a duly-elected president from office, especially since they get to vote on him next
year. They also want evidence that impeachment is bipartisan, that it seeks to protect our
country and not just one party.
Pelosi knows she cannot provide it. She is not counting on an avalanche of damning new
evidence or a collapse of Trump's Republican support in the House or Senate. Instead, she's
counting on the damage she can do to Trump's chances in 2020. It's a risky strategy, one that
could sink the president but could also endanger the Democrats' House majority.
The best way to understand the speaker's true aim is to ask 'how would Pelosi, Schiff,
and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by
impeachment?'
The short answer is that they would bend over backwards to show the whole process is fair,
open, and deliberate. They would use that impartial process to forge a broad, bipartisan
consensus that the president had committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and should be
removed. That's exactly what Democrats did during the Nixon impeachment. It's not what they are
doing now.
It's not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are
interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been
entirely shut out of the process . Nor is it only that Pelosi and her allies are
determined to rush a foregone conclusion through committee and avoid going to court if Trump
refuses to provide documents or witnesses. (Normally, federal courts would settle such a
standoff between the legislative and executive branches.) Schiff and Pelosi have announced that
they won't litigate these issues or give the White House due process. Instead, they will count
any refusal as evidence of obstruction. Their reason is simple: speed is more important than
judicial legitimacy.
All these are important points, but there is a bigger one. These streamlined, partisan
procedures are proof that House Democrats are not trying to win bipartisan support for
impeachment or set the stage for Senate conviction. They are building a case against Trump to
defeat him at the ballot box.
Politically, that strategy makes sense. Republican officeholders won't abandon Trump unless
he is badly weakened. Until then, they fear his clout; he has proven he can defeat enemies in
party primaries. Just ask the governors of Florida and Georgia.
Pelosi understands this terrain and the choice it poses. She can either drop the endless
investigations and face the wrath of her party base, or she can plunge ahead, call it
impeachment, and hope to defeat Trump next year. She has chosen the latter.
This impeach-and-be-damned strategy is risky. It is already hurting vulnerable, centrist
Democrats, and the damage could mount. Ukraine is the only plausible issue for impeachment, but
that focus has already knee-capped the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. His son,
Hunter, earned big money from a Ukrainian energy company without any qualifications beyond his
DNA. The more Democrats focus on Ukraine, the worse for Biden.
More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker's
gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters'
central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials
couldn't accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show
voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. That's one reason
she has postponed a floor vote to authorize the inquiry. But she can't delay forever or deliver
on the centrists' promise to pass significant, bipartisan legislation.
This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020.
Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a 'do nothing' Congress
controlled by 'radical socialists'. Democrats will run against a 'corrupt, erratic,
self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.'
Unless the Democrats can find a clean, competent, center-left candidate to lead them, they
face a difficult task. They will need to sell the public on unpopular, brutally expensive new
Washington programs. That agenda doesn't just split the country, it splits the Democrats. What
unifies them is hating Trump and everything he stands for.
Pelosi's impeachment strategy is not separate from this electoral calculation. It's central
to it.
Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the
University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and
Security. This article was originally published on
RealClearPolitics .
"... Fiona Hill, a "respected Russia scholar" and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump's fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating "a fictional narrative." She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it. ..."
"... In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill's testimony, American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow's own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair. ..."
"... The accusations of a Ukrainian influence campaign center on actions by a handful of Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Mr. Trump's candidacy in 2016. ..."
"... Just keep in mind that those claims are unfounded. The 'handful' of Ukrainians managed, with help from the Democratic National Council, to push Trump's campaign manager to resign. They even bragged about it. Ukrainians were also the biggest foreign donors to Hillary Clinton's foundation. ..."
"... Those are "unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference". Because Putin pointed them out. However, let me assure you that neither the Times nor the CIA would ever make unfounded claims of a Russian operation. It is Russia that is trying 'to sow discord'. It is not an unfounded Democratic impeachment inquiry that does that. ..."
Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh
critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump's fiercest defenders in
Congress that they were repeating "a fictional narrative." She said that it likely came from
a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it.
In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill's testimony, American intelligence
officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a
yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow's own hacking of
the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans
stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair.
...
The revelations demonstrate Russia's persistence in trying to sow discord among its
adversaries -- and show that the Kremlin apparently succeeded, as unfounded claims about
Ukrainian interference seeped into Republican talking points.
So there was no Ukrainian meddling, no Ukrainian interference. Claims thereof are
unfounded! But just a few sentences later the piece curiously says something different:
The accusations of a Ukrainian influence campaign center on actions by a handful of
Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Mr. Trump's candidacy in 2016.
Just keep in mind that those claims are unfounded. The 'handful' of Ukrainians managed, with help from the Democratic National Council, to push
Trump's campaign manager to resign. They even bragged about it. Ukrainians were also the biggest
foreign donors to Hillary Clinton's foundation.
However, because Putin once pointed that out, those claims must be unfounded. They must be
Russian disinformation:
During a news conference in February 2017, Mr. Putin accused the Ukrainian government of
supporting Hillary Clinton during the previous American election and funding her candidacy
with friendly oligarchs.
It is not clear when American intelligence agencies learned about Moscow's campaign or
when precisely it began.
...
One target was the leak of a secret ledger disclosed by a Ukrainian law enforcement agency
that appeared to show that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's onetime campaign chairman, had taken
illicit payments from Ukrainian politicians who were close to Moscow. He was forced to step
down from the Trump campaign after the ledger became public in August 2016, and the Russians
have since been eager to cast doubt on its authenticity, the former official said.
Those are "unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference". Because Putin pointed them
out. However, let me assure you that neither the Times nor the CIA would ever make
unfounded claims of a Russian operation. It is Russia that is trying 'to sow discord'. It is not an unfounded Democratic impeachment
inquiry that does that.
Posted by b on November 23, 2019 at 18:08 UTC | Permalink
Maybe the CIA has decided that they need to make the claims more obtuse so that even the
mentally competent have trouble explaining the 11 dimensional chess involved.
After all, if Trump singlehanded, as he claims, kept Xi from sending the troops into HK
then Putin assuredly can influence American politics.....if Putin only could make it all go
away.....what a waste of time, energy and money that could be spent on improving the lot of
the poor, living on the streets in the US
When and how will the private finance empire circus end?
At least the US has Bernie and Tulsi calling out the coup in Bolivia for what it
is.....maybe there is hope.
Manafort was managing campaigns of pro-Russian political parties/candidates in Ukraine for
7 years or so before being hired by Trump. My understanding is that Manafort was warned that
his work was undermining USA efforts in Ukraine.
Why did America First Trump bring on Flynn?
Flynn was known to be hated by the intelligence community for having told the world that
the Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support the rise of ISIS.
Why did America First Trump make pleas for Putin to release Hillary's emails via
Wikileaks?
It was already known that some of the emails contained top secret information. AFAIK, USA
would consider any publication a crime.
These were set-ups.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Why was "independent", "socialist true believer", supposed man-of-integrity Sanders
sheepdogging for Hillary ("enough with your damn emails")?
Why did Hillary, a seasoned campaigner with virtually unlimited resources, make so many
grievous mistakes in the 2016 election? She snubbed Sanders and his supporters; took the
black vote for granted; insulted whites as "deplorables"; chose not to campaign in the THREE
STATES that she know would decided the election. Why didn't she pull out all the stops to
win? For her beloved establishment? For her own aspirations as first women President? If she
failed because she was "over confident" as some have suggested, then why did she pay for the
Steele dossier as "insurance"? There was no need for insurance if she knew she would win and
if she were unsure of winning she should have done everything possible to win (as any real
candidate would have).
Why did America First Trump use British company Cambridge Analytica? We later
learned that facebook provided the same info to dozens of other companies (debunking the
initial excuse that Cambridge Analytica had special access to facebook info). Was it because
the Russiagate disinfo and CIA election meddling campaign was located in UK?
Why did Trump initiate Ukrainegate by talking about investigating Biden on a diplomatic
call? He's smart enough to know that such political machinations are handled behind the
scenes.
This Reality Show Presidency is all about kayfabe as the Deep State restructures to meet
the challenge from China and Russia, and seeks to manufacture consent for a war with
Iran.
The take away quote
"
Defend American Democracy has spent six figures on television advertisements pressuring
Republican members of Congress to "hold the president accountable for abusing his office and
risking national security for his own gain." The group, which primarily targets
swing-district Republicans, prominently features military veterans in its ads and presents
itself as a veterans group to local media outlets.
........
The 501(c)(4) group is managed by Eric Kessler, a former Clinton administration official who
runs the philanthropic firm Arabella Advisors. The anonymously funded nonprofit was behind
several groups that ran "issue ads" to benefit Democrats during the 2018 midterms, as well as
Demand Justice, a group that spent millions of dollars on ads attacking Brett Kavanaugh
during his nomination to the Supreme Court. The Sixteen Thirty Fund and its sister 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, New Venture Fund, have fiscally sponsored at least 80 of their own groups,
bankrolling those entities in a way that leaves almost no paper trail.
"
The US has the best government Russian influence has not bought.
div> @b #3
I really think the twitter account is satire, judging from other tweets and the profile
pic.
So Russia hacked and attacked Hillary and DNC as Russia. (I believe that is still the
official left-Dem-media meme, despite investigation producing no evidence.) And they attacked
Trump disguised as Ukraine.
This sowing discord is a busy undertaking.
And rather unnecessary, considering the pre-existing state of discord in the nation and
politics, a duplicitous Dem party lost in the wilderness, as it searches a popular cry that
won't actually empower people, a Republican Party that was overwhelmed by a populist tide and
candidate not sanctioned by the leadership, and a legacy media that can crank up divisions on
command.
Maybe I should've posted my comment @6 on the "Impeachment Circus" thread instead.
It just struck me that neoMcCarthist smearing of Russia (which is ongoing, as proven by
b's post) was made possible via the kayfabe of Russiagate, which had it's origins in the 2016
election.
Fiona Hill...another bare faced liar whose name is not Hillary Clinton....I am no longer
astonished that this crap is actually publishable despite the evidence available to anyone
with at least two brain cells. Having followed on the Net the coup in Ukraine in 2014 from
2013 on via live blogs by Western corespondents who are not beholden to the MSM, I know what
lies that latter "journaille" gets away with.
Fiona Hill is an expert on Russophobic content. Like Condi Rice, a Soviet Scholar, she knows
nothing truthful about Russia. Else, why does she lie about Russia?
The think tanks, academia and State Dept. spew out the lies which the Media multiplies.
99% of Russian experts are Russophobes who possess little expertise, some practicing their
propaganda for decades. Many of them excrete books on regular schedules.
The first test (since 2014) of any expert's credentials is his/her position on Crimea. The
next test is on Russian aggression.
If anyone suggests Crimea does not belong to Russia (most especially the federal district of
Sevastopol), then they are ignorant or lying. You either know that in 1954 Crimea was
unconstitutionally given to Ukraine by the Ukrainian Khruschev. It was illegal by USSR law.
2014 corrected that injustice. The experts who profess otherwise are lying.
And if anyone suggests that the Russians are aggressors, they are lying. If Russia was an
aggressor in Georgia or Ukraine, neither would have governments that are so anti-Russian or
militaries that could form a small parade, much less beg for inclusion in NATO.
Russia reacted to Georgian aggression and mass murder. In Ukraine, the Donbass is a Russian
assisted self-defense operation against an ethnic cleansing war. Russia's participation has
been to save 2.5 million Russian-speaking Ukrainians from slaughter ('filtration' is the Ukie
euphemism for killing the Donbass separatists who refuse Kiev's nazi regime).
Russian 'aggression' is a construct of propaganda. Taken in the context of NATO expansion
and encroachment right to the borders of Russia, there is nothing but lies tied to the
'aggression' canard.
We have had 28 years of demonization of the Russian Federation. Russophobia is centuries
old in some societies. Of late, it focuses on the attempts to separate away from Russia the
brother republics of the CIS region of Eurasia. Fed lies, distortion of history, linguistic
differences, religious issues and economic disadvantages, a mania against Russia has been
cultivated. It all is led by "the experts" like Fiona Hill.
We see the same dynamic used against China with Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and
Inner Mongolia. Propaganda. Lies. Experts who mouth the Sinophobic fabrications are the
talking heads on Media and on Congressional sideshows.
Russophobia and Sinophobia are industries now. Fame, publishing riches, TV appearances,
YouTube videos abound with the 'expertise' of these haters.
Judge the output of these expert operatives. The content is always flawed. The truth is
always hidden. But lies fly fast and loose.
Some people actually do believe this stuff, dependent on their partisan world view.
The IG report, which will outline abuses of the FISA system which appears to have
authorized surveillance of Trump campaign by the FBI, is scheduled for release on December 9.
The degree to which it will be damaging to the Russian collusion/hacking/sowing discord
anti-Trump crowds was anticipated yesterday by the simultaneous publication by CNN and WaPo
of assurances by unnamed "officials" that the report will not find anything but minor
discrepancies. Getting out ahead of the story so obviously and more than a week in advance
likely means the report will be damaging - although that may be just a Russian talking
point.
But much as I enjoyed this, I still have to point out that if Ukrainian meddling was so
important and their US consorts so treasonous, then Russian meddling was so important and
*their* consorts so treasonous. You can't honestly have it both ways, either the Democrats'
excusing Ukrainians or the Trumpists excusing Russia. Actually, you can't even honestly say
you know either made any difference. No one sensible thinks either party meant to give aid
and comfort to enemies of the US---the constitutional* definition of treason---unless you
believe the US is justly in undeclared war with the rest of humanity. The only big difference
is that it was Trump who openly asked for foreign assistance in a public speech. The only
conclusion to draw from that is Trumpists are whiners who can dish it out but can't take
it.
*The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule. Of course they also pretend that impeachment reverses elections. The cherry on
top of this turd sundae? They would reject the 26th Amendment, which would have been invoked
against Reagan as well as Trump (and possibly his original, Nixon, as well.) Pence is not
even man enough to do his duty.
Why did the Hildabeast get the Steele Dossier as insurance if she was confident of
victory?
For the same reason that a healthy person in their 20's or 30's, someone not in the least
expecting to die for decades, purchases life insurance covering their family. Just "in case"
the wildly improbable does indeed happen.
I can't see anyone who has a realistic chance of being elected president, let alone with
the historic feat of being the first female president deliberately throwing all this
away.
No matter how often I'm brought to consider this, it still seems striking that 2 years and
$40 million in US law fare waged by the Special Prosecutor is not enough to see Fiona Hill
laughed out of chambers at her RussiaRussia harangue, whereas the NYT is able to establish an
equivalent lack of foundation to the Ukraine meddling thesis in a thrice, notwithstanding
rather substantial counter-evidence long in the public domain. Indeed the Grey Lady does not
even try to debunk these claims, allowing herself instead to refer to them debunked. If you
say so, apparently, or if you and your cohort say so often enough.
For any progressives still gaslighted by this, I invite you to consider a similar
full-court legal, media, IC / Deep State campaign featuring most of the same actors, engaging
next in the hobbling or destruction of a Bernie Sanders presidency.
Or the Steele Dossier was intended so much insurance as a cudgel to beat the fallen
Donald, post-election loser, while he was down. This was the man whose most stirring
electoral refrain was "lock her up." She and her masters would have had every reason to want
to grind him into the dirt after beating him.
Fiona Hill studied Russian history with Richard Pipes, the Evil Empire man. Pipes is and
was a laughingstock in academia. No one would study with him who had an actual interest in
the supposed field of study. Being his protegé was simply a roll of the dice for a
careerist. Hill also studied with a Ukrainian emigré named Szporlak. He was likely
closer to awake during class than Pipes, who really was a very old fool while supervising
Hill.
Condoleeza Rice notoriously wrote her dissertation about the postwar Czech military while
having minimal ability in Russian and less in Czech. More likely it was simply ghostwritten.
Full of egregious errors, placing Czech politicians at heart of action while they were
actually teaching at University of Chicago.
Sorry, oldhippie, Pipes wasn't and is not a laughingstock in academia. He merely should have
been. His son Daniel is doing the same in middle east studies and he's not a laughingstock
either. It is hard to underestimate how little effect adhering to the basic scholarly
standards can have in keeping out motivated reasoning, double standards, agendas, political
servitude, etc. It is quite likely that Pipes has a better reputation than Stephen Cohen, J.
Arch Getty or Sheila FitzPatrick. He certainly has a better reputation than a Mark Tauger.
Pipes' classes at Harvard in 70s were a spectator sport. Come and see the Cold War fossil.
Lectures routinely interrupted by gales of laughter. Yes, he had a comeback. No, no one has
ever taken him or his 'scholarship' seriously. He simply happens to be useful. Daniel is just
as bad.
Paul @ 22, wrote: "She [Harridan Hillary] and her masters would have had every reason to want
to grind him [Tweetie Bird] into the dirt after beating him."
I agree, but there was also the need to demonize Russia and V.V.Putin to lay the ground
for the war against Russia. The campaign against Trump began in January 2016, launched by
Brennan and the CIA, whose strumpet H.H. had been since back in Arkansas.
Already in July 2016, she was openly campaigning against V.V.P. There was ONE ( 1! )
foreign policy plank in her platform, and it was the no-fly zone over Syria. General Joseph
Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified before the United States Congress
in mid-September 2016, on which occasion he was asked about the no-fly zone. He responded,
promptly and unequivocally, that it would mean war with Russia.
If war with Russia had not been the objective, the Great Grey Whore would have used its
position in New York to investigate Tweetie Bird and publish to the world, indeed, hammer to
the world, the long grotesque story of his attempt to make a career in real estate, and the
fraud he engaged in from the start. His string of bankruptcies was the most spectacular in
the history of American business enterprise (this from somebody who has studied United States
economic and financial history) instead of letting him constantly blather on about what a
great businessman he was etc.
His father had him on the payroll when he was two, to the tune of $200,000, in order to
pass wealth on to him without paying the very high gift tax. By the time his father died, he
had made over to Tweetie Bird something in the neighborhood of $420 million. And Tweetie Bird
squandered it all, plus the fabulous real-estate empire that his father had left him -- all
gone...
In 2002, Tweetie Bird was over $3 billion (yes, BILLION) in debt to 72 banks in New York
and no New York bank would give him a credit line, which he desperately needed to keep up his
incessant refrain that money is no object for Donald Trump. So, he turned to the Russian
oligarchs for whom he had been laundering money to generate cash flow. They gave him a credit
line through the Cypriot banks that they controlled, and now they own him. They are his
Russian connection, not V.V.P., who has been fighting the oligarchs since he first took
office -- look at what V.V.P. did to Michail Khodokovski: ten years in the gulag (he's now
living in Switzerland reduced to scraping by on the ten or so billion that he had squirreled
away in Swiss banks).
Tweetie Bird owns NOTHING. Everything is in the name of the Trump Organization, to protect
it from confiscation when the reckoning comes. And, since the T.O. publishes NOTHING about
its affairs, it's reasonable to assume that he is in debt to his Cypriot banks, probably to
the tune of five or six billion at this point, and that they hold liens on every piece of
property he claims as his own.
Tweetie Bird is all about Tweetie Bird, exclusively. His pitch for détente with
Russia was a classic case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, to wit he intended
to lift the sanctions if V.V.P. would round up the oligarchs who have Tweetie Bird over the
barrel and pack them off to the gulag. However, in August 2017, Congress pulled the rung out
from under him by reinforcing the sanctions and thus removing them from executive order
purview and placing them under Congressional authority.
Hilarious someone said. Really. The Russians would have to be superhuman geniuses to do half
of what US 'Intelligence' says about them. It is transparently true, OTOH, that CIA and etc.
are true clods and dolts. It's tautological really.
My understanding is that Manafort was warned that his work was undermining USA efforts in
Ukraine.
So what? Maybe Trump wanted to undermine the Washington Borg's efforts in Ukraine as they
were counter to his principle foreign policy - cordial relations with Russia. Since Trump was
very clear about this policy all through the election, he has every right to implement that
policy regardless of what anyone opposed to him might think or try to do. It's one of the
basic concepts of a democratic system (yeah, I am aware that the U.S. is a republic not a
democracy, etc.) that the successful candidate should be able to implement any legal policy
that was part of his manifesto.
As for Trump asking the Russians to look for Hillary Clinton's e-mails, it was a joke. Added
to which it was a reference to the 30,000 "personal" e-mails that that idiot, Hillary
Clinton, had managed to mislay and not the DNC and Podesta e-mails that were leaked by some
unknown party to Wikileaks.
These low brow knuckle draggers know how to spin lies. Their useless parade of irrelevant
nincompoops proves an ongoing campaign to demonize Russian people. We all see it here
constantly on other blogs and MSN reports. These people know very well who their match is and
cannot compete socially, on certain new military complexes, political maturity, etc. I offer
Sergey Lavrov as a person not matched by any other nation. All western parasites in
opposition pale in stature, political maturity, and brains. The Russians know what the deal
is with these western crybabies, and know they are dealing with premature juveniles. These
people show how weak they are by their actions and the Russians show patience. Oh, and that
kayfabe word, Trump ..."be fake."... has much experience with it from his wrestling exposure.
This farce has that written all over it, fake bullshit.
I have been watching the Trump impeachment hearings farce on television over the past weeks
and have heard enough BS by the so-called witnesses to fertilize the Sinai Desert. The real
reason behind the hearings is not 'quid pro quo,' but 'cui bono' (who benefits). The parade
of over-the-hill Cold War warriors has reinforced my belief that the impeachment hearings are
essentially an attempt by the old Cold War guard to retain their privileges and positions of
power in Washington. As for Ms. Fiona Hill, she is a prime example of the old dictum that
states, "A Brit with an upper class accent reading the phone book sounds smarter to most
Americans, than Abe Lincoln reading the Gettysburg Address.
Macabre Comedy is the only appropriate descriptive term IMO. Russia is a very busy nation,
every bit as busy as its leader VV Putin. Who within the Evil Outlaw US Empire's national
government is even close to being Putin's equivalent? The vast majority are mere
kindergarteners in comparison, Trump included. In case you've been asleep since 2007 or so,
Putin and all of Russia are working their tails off to improve their nation and their
comrades's wellbeing and in doing so have surpassed The Empire is qualitative military
equipment, nuclear engineering, and a host of other areas, along with building several
geoeconomic blocs of kindred nations to which the Empire can only answer with idiotic
accusations and factless BigLie Media items.
If anything tells us how low the Evil Outlaw US Empire has sunk, it's this attempt to
impeach a POTUS using bullshit for evidence. The would be emperor isn't the only one sans
clothes--the entire imperial edifice is revealed as a scrawny, emaciated, traumatized waif
that the curtain can no longer hide.
Headline: "How True Is the Story on Which the US Sanctions against Russia Are Based?"
Very good question!! Glad someone in the MSM is (finally) asking it . . .
"Mit seinen Aussagen zum Tod eines Whistleblowers brachte Bill Browder die Amerikaner gegen
Putin auf. Doch seine Darstellung ist voller Widersprüche. Von Benjamin Bidder "
With his statements regarding the death of a whistleblower [Magnitsky was no such thing]
Brill Browder [arch scumbag] stirred up the Americans against Putin. But his account is full
of contradictions [you don't say].
And at Bidder's website in addition:
"Washington based its sanctions on Browder's account of Magnitsky's death."
Unfortunately the Spiegel story is behind a paywall. Perhaps someone here has a sub.
People here may recall that a very good documentary about the whole affair, "Behind the
Scenes," made by Andrei Nekrasov, was buried in the USA but was available online. It is a
great explanation of the scurrilous Browder and his role in getting the balling rolling in DC
against Putin. Has great footage of Browder running away from cameras, men trying to serve
subpoenas, and, in front of the camera, squirming-and-sweating-while-lying.
So it seems to me like good news if questions about Browder and his tale are raised in Der
Spiegel---even though I haven't read the article.
I have no argument with constitutional executive powers. I do have many arguments against
Unitary Executive Theory. You can campaign on a policy and implement it once elected, but you
can't use executive power with corrupt intent and claim immunity.
I have been watching closely both the Trump and the Hillary misbehaviors for quite a
while. Your post up above is, I think, the first string of assertions about the pair of them
that I agree with without exception . As far as the activities that you covered in
that post are concerned, you've got each of them nailed to a "T".
I hope we'll see further comments from you, that will exhibit the same degree of
accuracy.
The degree of dishonesty and blatant manipulation by the MSM has reached ridiculous levels.
MSM journalists are not journalists, they are lying, evil peddlers of propaganda shilling for
the military industrial complex; they are as blood-stained as the psychopathic elite that
they so faithfully serve...they should be held responsible for their lies, up to and
including prosecution for war crimes:
There is an article on
telepolis (no paywall, in German) on the Spiegel piece, demasking the author Benjamin
Bidder as someone who belatedly jumps on the bandwagon that others have set in motion, first
and foremost the Russian filmmaker Andrej Nekrasov.
Really @ 33 Thanks for the reference to the Der Spiegel article questioning Magnitsky. Hij is
absolutely ground zero of the whole Russia paranoia and Ukraine obsession. The US has lost
all perspective: an insignificant place like Ukraine dominates its national and foreign
policies while its own people have to pay the price.
Thanks mk @ 37. Sure Nekrasov investigated the Magnitsky story but his film was available to
no one in the US and the EU in the standard outlets (TV, cinema, etc.). Der Spiegel is MSM as
any MSM can be and it is then significant that the publication prints this article, even if
Magnitsky and the anti-Russian mania he set in motion with the help of US politicians is
still enigmatic. How can one man recruit the whole US political system to protect his
personal wealth? Has a contributed to the campaign funds, Clinton Foundation, etc.?
Hillary Clinton: "We better get to the White House if most of us do not want to end up at the
lamp posts". O America, if you knew what these people are doing to the Americans----- after
they got rid of president Kennedy.
It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton as Sec of State transacted her entire
computer communications operation on an unsecured server in a closet at her home. It was
shared with the Clinton Foundation. It was never secured or in any way made available to the
US Government IT security team.
Likewise she used unsecured phones.
That is what the problem was as that server would have been accessed by a number of state
actors who would suspect some benefit might come their way if they peeked. A cinch for any
state actor let alone a clever hacker.
Hillary Clinton is guilty of the single extreme national security breach in US history.
And they are killing Assange to cover for her criminal treachery.
Mina @40: A beggars banquet. A festival of corruption. I wonder when it will dawn on those
needy greedheads that the Sauds are running on empty too ...
A minor point, true enough, but Fiona Hill does most definitely *not* have an ""upper
class English" accent. (As a former Brit of English and working class origin, that is as
apparent as could be.) Her accent is a much softened after many years away from her working
class family origins in North-Eastern England - specifically, County Durham, and as many
years trying to rid herself of those working class origins, taints there remains the local
lilt to her diction.
Regarding her rank, stinking Russophobia - I would suggest that its origins were *not*
from her background (her father was a coal miner) but rather from the fact that she spent her
late teens and early adulthood under the Thatcher the Snatcher government and its deliberate
ending of public ownership of basic services as it installed TINA - pure rapacious,
plundering, mammon and moloch worshipping corporate-capitalism allied to imperialism.
Add to these likely background effects, the desire among some of those of working class
origins who, on achieving a tertiary education have every intention of eschewing and
disparaging their backgrounds and adopting wholeheartedly the worldview of the ruling elites.
Not at all unusual, certainly in the UK.
Definitely totally distorted. Inaccurate (I doubt that she has ever spent much, if any,
time in Russia with ordinary, working class Russians - ho no, too far down the ladder) and
extremely partisan. Another Dem shill?
An aside: my late husband's friends are all highly educated and all (the American ones,
anyway) glued to the impeachment hearings and gung-ho for them.... Education isn't all it's
cracked up to be, clearly. (And For the record - I am very much anti-both parties.)
Really?? @ 33 : thanks for reminding us about Andrei Nekrasov's "Behind the Scenes". The
effort to bury it as well as the reaction (including -- especially? -- from among the
Congresscritters) was an outstanding example of groupthink -- everybody move in lock-step
with the prescribed belief and vilify, demonize those who dare to propose something different
that contradicts the groupthink
Antispin @ 35, thanks for the compliment. I keep trying...
Glad some of you appreciated the parody. We need such cleverness. It is at the opposite
end of the spectrum from groupthink, and it's a good antidote to the mind-numbing drivel of
mendacious mainstream media.
In reply to Karlof1 - absolutely agree about the abilities of V. Putin and his team. If ONLY
we had any government (had any akin to them over the past decades) as able, sensible,
concerned about their country as Putin and his team clearly are, we'd be a peaceful,
non-terroristic, economically more equal place. I would also include with V. Putin and his
team, Xi and his government and the Iranian elected government - and Khamenei. Our lot are
squealing, uneducated (in the true sense of the term) greedy, amoral children by comparison
AnneR @ 46 wrote: "Education isn't all it's cracked up to be, clearly."
Education has both a very positive and a very negative dimension.
On the positive side is the socialization that puts one in touch with many people, most of
whom, ideally, one would mot meet otherwise (not the least of whom are great teachers at all
levels) and teaches one to get along with them. Also, on the positive side is learning: it
saves one from constantly reinventing the wheel, so to speak, and gives a personal touch to
imparted knowledge.
On the negative side is the lock-step conformity it can -- and more and more does --
impose on social mores. Also there is the transmission of the mindset and beliefs that Andrew
Carnegie splendidly called the gospel of wealth (he was gung-ho for it, of course -- God made
him rich because God wanted him to be rich...). Both of these are essential underpinnings to
groupthink (which, by the way, was studied in depth at Yale University in the 1960s, and
where it got it's name).
There's a movie called "Billy Elliot", which takes place in the 1980s UK, that tells this
story: the boy had a miner father and a miner older brother, with high class consciousness --
there's even a scene where they fight over one of the members who violated the strike and
went to work.
But none of that matters of little Billy, as he wants to be a ballet dancer. The riot
police, the strikes, all of that appears just as a background, the landscape, over which he
and his best friend talk about wanting to do ballet.
The figure of Billy Elliot represents the transition in the UK from an industrial economy
to a services one, and the transition of a social-democratic UK to a neoliberal UK.
Many assume that "education" involves learning true things. There is reason for this
assumption in engineering and math, as these actually involve logical proofs. However many
professionals, presumably "educated" are ignorant of the basic science necessary for
understanding and proving...pharmacists who are re-leaved of the obligation to, for example,
ever take a chemistry class, or chemistry test. Thus the assumption is, well, not always
valid. Other examples abound...look for a few. Ask, for example, the X-Ray technician a few
questions about the physics of his job...
However the assumption fails entirely when one enters the bizarre realm of canonical
myth...such as "history" or "political theory" or the Chicago School of Econ.
It is also often assumed that education involves teachers. I have not noticed that such
people are, generally, of any value. Rather, the profession of teaching serves to park people
who might upset matters in a place where they are under control and addicted to their
paychecks, and serve up propaganda according to the rule.
And it is assumed that it involves a forum dedicated to what they call education, when in
reality it is that forum where the process that binds takes place. The Toga, the Bath>
"Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the "toga" became fashionable.
Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant
banquet. All this in their ignorance, they called civilization, when it was but a part of
their servitude." (Tacitus)
Think jeans and Hollywood, and propaganda.
One particularly egregious difference 'tween education is the exclusion of any formal
study of Rhetoric and logic, with developed skill in these, as a basic prerequisite. Such
matters are now generally ignored, and have been in the canonical syllabus of US "education"
for, more or less, a century.
AnneR @ 46 wrote: "Education isn't all it's cracked up to be, clearly."
Like with food, deprivation is bad, but content, the manner of serving etc. can have a
variety of effects. Here we have an example of a narrower phenomenon, meritocracy. Somewhere
I read that the imperial government of China had European guest and advisors who informed
their host about certain advances in Europe like clock construction and improved cartography,
but who also brought back information about the Chinese method of selecting officials on the
basis of examinations. Initially, the English adopted civil service selected by examinations
to rule India, and that worked so well that the system was extended for the government of
England as well. Like in China, the key was to learn the wisdom of the classics. Of course,
Confucius was replaced with Plato, Horace etc. Back in China, Confucius seems to be replaced
by the study of the History of Chinese Communist Party -- obligatory regardless of the
major.
However, what is outright sinister is the coupling of "narrative building" performed for
intelligence/national security apparatus in USA and UK with academia. "Properly thinking"
luminaries from top institutions of learning were recruited for the purpose, with Fiona Hill
mentor being prime example. From what I understand, Richard Pipes left the position of the
head of Russian and Slavic Studies at Harvard to be CIA consultant where he lead Team B to
assess the intentions and capabilities of USSR. Unlike more realistic team A, Team B strongly
exaggerated both sinister plans of USSR, basically suggesting that without heeding the
constraints of MAD, they will attempt to subjugate the West, and the capabilities. Almost
hiilariously, his team postulated that the symptoms of economic stagnation in USSR were faked
to lull the West into complaisance. Recommendations of Team B were enthusiastically adopted
by Reagan administration to justify acceleration of defense spending. Check "Team B" in
Wikipedia. "I would say that all of it was fantasy. ... if you go through most of Team B's
specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were
all wrong." Needless to say, the theory of faked economic decline was absurd.
Lamentably, Pipes did not abandoned his teaching duties, and while he toiled as the head
of Team B he was mentoring Ph. D. students including Fiona Hill.
*The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule. Of course they also pretend that impeachment reverses elections. The cherry on
top of this turd sundae? They would reject the 26th Amendment, which would have been invoked
against Reagan as well as Trump (and possibly his original, Nixon, as well.) Pence is not
even man enough to do his duty. by: steven t johnson @ 17 <=you might also be interested
to know that these same types want to take control of all of the resources, all of the
departments, all of the labor, and all of whatever else that exist in America so the USA can
use them to conduct continuous war and manage the grey zone.. read on..
The white paper "Russian Strategic Intentions"[ https://cryptome.org/2019/07/Pentagon-Russia.pdf],
caste its analysis of the future in terms of "competition and conflict" and presents, in its
preface, a long list of those associated to the claim that the USA should use "all of its
instruments of state power" in a comprehensive fashion, to manage grey area warfare, to
promote elite interest in far away places, and to impose aggression (in environment, in
economic activity, with influence campaigns, with paramilitary assault, with cyber intrusion,
and with political warfare) as a defense to Russian grey zone global activities. What bull
shit! no wonder Americans cannot understand Article II Presidents or the USA endangering
Americans and their quality of life because the USA is involved in bombing, destructing and
aggressing activities. The groups that wrote this report have decided they should decide for
the American public, what the USA policy should be? I wonder what Americans would say about
that?
Is it true that "Americans need go no further than think tanks and intelligence services
supporting USA aggression in foreign lands, to find their enemies and to discover the cause
of why their lot has been reduced to forth world peon status? Who in America allowed groups
of the type that wrote this paper to decide, or even to think about deciding, for Americans
what the USA should be doing? Why is not "war for ever, even when there is no war" the
narrative debated by USA politicians competing to govern America? Governed Americans and
governed Russians should build a stadium, outfit the personnel in Russian and USA
governments, their think tanks and their intelligence services with uniforms, lock the two
opposed teams in the stadium, and sell the TV rights to pay off the national debt of all of
the nations of the world as these two teams as they fight it out to the last man, woman and
paper tiger warrior.
Consider this fascinating assumption or projection => "Russia believes..there is no
unacceptable or illegitimate form of deterrence, compellence, or escalation
management(Goure).. [<= I cannot find in real life the continuum of conflict this group
talks about?]. Like Russia's perception of its competition with the USA, its perception of
conflict is dichotomous: one is either at war or not at war." I had no idea Russia could
believe anything? Apparently think tanks supporting the USA; think Russia can think, and
have concluded, as a result of their thoughts, that war exist, even when: there is no war? My
USA cat jumped over the starry moon, while his Russian cow chased earthly rats? The so-called
Russian grand (balance of powers) strategy vs whole of USA government liberal order
management of the international grey zone => compels and escalates the USA, sez the
report, to maintain a continuous state of war?
.. "Countering Russian provocations [<=competition maybe, but not provocation?] requires
all instruments of USA national power, they say?" <=note: as long as not on American soil
who cares?
Piotr seems to agree with Walter. The general principle seems to be "We'll know our
disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"
(Casey/ Honneger) and of course everyone must recall Clapper complaining about the Russians
finding "fissures in our [US/CIA] tapestry" (one never hears the word "tapestry" in US
English except, generally,in the phrase "tapestry of lies"...unless one is involved with
curtains or one sort, or another...the term "Eiserner Vorhang" popularized by
Churchill...that's a tapestry, ain't it?
If their lips move, they lie, friend. And do not look behind the green tapestry at the
mighty Wurlitzer...
Well, snake, the thalassocratic rule of the Anglosaxon diaspora into forward operating base
(former republic) USA has evidently failed, and "they" now follow not the republic's laws,
but the ukase of Imperial method. They have no other methods.
This was also the reason for England to start WW1. German industry and Ruski resources
would (will/is/has) integrate(d) Heartland and create(d) a tellurocratic reality those Fine
fella's down at the shop cannot abide.
Think of this as a loose connecting rod in a chevy motor...you know what's going to
happen, but it's the only way to go...so you pretend it's ok...
If US intelligence agencies are asserting that Ukraine meddling in the US election was a
Russian operation, when in fact Ukraine did indeed heavily meddle in the elections, isn't
that treason by the US intelligence agency officials concerned?
" deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral College on the fraudulent grounds that a
technicality matters more really are..."
The US, formerly a Republic and remaining approximately Republican in institutional
appearances and out-side form, has never been a democracy. It was not intended to be, though
it had some democratic forms. ("Democracy" is without semantic value as it is used these
days.)
That's not a trivial technical characteristic. It was intentional and basic. It's the lay
of the Basic Law of the US since 1789 or so, and perhaps less so in the actual Basic Law c
1776...some claim the 1778 Law was not properly ratified...a sound argument once, eclipsed
entirely by long custom, custom being the basis of all Law (and some Ukase).
Of course nowadays it's not even a Republic, more like an animated zombie largely under
the incompetent control of several elite clubs, including foreign and also zionist and also
financial clubs, which are in constant turmoil...because these clubs are running out of
options.
When you are in a conflict set and run out of options, then you almost always lose...since
everybody can see what you must do, and they themselves make plans to counter yours.
In this undertaking the Ruskis and the Chinese have preeminence.
It's already over... Soon they will realize that, and make deals.
............
BM, fair question about the Big T. It depends on who writes the History, curtain-makers
or... At the present time Big T cannot exist, but...one may assume that the Russian
Historians and the Chinese Historians will say "Big-T".
"The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule."
You seem to advocating the concept of mob rule. Do you understand that a popular opinion
is not necessarily a correct opinion?
Other important aspect of the Ukrainegate, which leads all the way to the Syriagate, of
utmost importance for European security, since we are made aware that matters of security are
directly in the hands of people strange, or in the way to be strange, to European interests
and organzitions, keeping all European institutions hostage of the NATO military
alliance´s interests, and which differs from the main point it is given here, that
related to the meddling in US elections, as if that were what most matter...when it is the
other way around, that the USUK complex meddles in each adn every aspect of Euroepan life,
interests, prospects and security, underminig them all...
I did watch that film when it was linked at an article about the whole affair at the Unz
Review (now I think the Bitchute link is once again neutered). Before seeing this article I
was virtually ignorant of the Magnitisky affair, scumbag Browder, and the putative affair's
influence on American policy. Here is the UNz Review article, by Israel Shamir: http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/?highlight=Browder
(sorry if not doing link properly)
It's a long story, which Shamir tells pretty clearly.
Kurz um, the American public was denied the chance to evaluate Browder's claims themselves by
viewing the film. Truly, censorship at its most naked.
Bidder may be jumping on a bandwagon (and, I don't know what he actually writes!!) but Der
Spiegel is 150% MSM, toeing the American line in most respects. So I do think even this
headline is worth noting.
However, I have read a large portion of the Telepolis article and it should be read by
anyone interested in Browder/Magnitsky. It is really a case study of an incredibly successful
disinformation campaign. Which are only possible with active and passive collusion of many
state and nonstate actors and of course the MSM media.
(Also, it looks as though Telepolis has been following this story in other articles that call
out news organizations and EU entities for their complicity in pushing Browder's narrative
and ignoring many counter-signs. Including canceling and otherwise burying Nekrasov's
excellent film.)
Actually, the larger topic in light of the Russiagate and impeachment circuses being
"clash of the titans' disinformation campaigns."
oldhippie@25 The anecdotes about what the insiders kept secret is instructive. The gales of
laughter did nothing to impair Pipes' academic reputation, nor were they meant to, I imagine.
Being a respected academic means also being respected in government and in the media, which
Pipes was. Team B and all that
Walter's babble about a Republic instead of a democracy is reactionary cant. The
Constitution originally read that the electors would be in fact the electors, interposing
against a majority to elect a responsible candidate, one determined to preserve the ruling
class. In those times, that meant slavers, of course. But, in Washington's elections,
Hamilton, concerned to prevent an inadvertent tie, intrigued to make sure John Adams got
fewer electoral votes than the popular voting of the time required. Adams was irate. In
Adams' own election, Hamilton supposedly tried to get the electors to switch votes so that a
Pinckney of South Carolina was elected. (Adams was honest in pecuniary matters and rather
intelligent, but he was something of a dingbat, which piety about the "Founding Fathers"
refuses to admit.) Adams was even more furious. And Jefferson made political capital,
swearing to all that his party's electors would vote the people's will. They did, and
promptly created a constitutional crisis when Jefferson and Burr tied, throwing the election
into the House. The intrigues aimed at overturning the people's will provoked talk of another
revolution or the break up of the union.
The principle that electors are not agents to actually elect the president but mere cogs
was established. It was affirmed by the incandescent fury of the Jacksonians at J.Q. Adams.
And it was further confirmed when the contested election of 1876 again was loud with talk
about uprisings. It was only the obscene withdrawal of troops from the South, protecting the
Klan etc., that pacified the uproar. It was not until the political degeneration of the later
years which lead the coward Gore to roll over. As mere agents of the popular vote, yes, the
EC is a mere technicality. My guess is that Walter personally would sneer at a criminal
defendant who relied on a technicality about their rights to get an acquittal. But the other
Walters want to use a technicality to take away people's rights. Then they are so shameless
as to pretend to virtue and wisdom.
As for the notion that the Electoral College is the enemy of the people's rights, instead
of the states' right? In this thread there are idiots ranting about treason because of email
server. If you want to see treason, look at the history of the Confederate States of America.
That's treason. We have a national government, it's part of the constitution (14th Amendment
is otherwise gibberish.) Thus, the Electoral College as a treaty compact between "sovereign"
(semi-sovereign is not really a thing!) is also dead. The EC is just a technicality. Walter
would implicitly have us believe that if the electors just picked someone else through
conspiracy among themselves, then the President chosen would be the President because that's
the Constitution, and that's just the way it is. Electors keeping faith with the people
instead of their parties would have voted for the person who won the vote. And Walter
wouldn't accept the result, no matter how much it followed the Constitution (which it would
have!) because reactionary scum like Walter are always liars.
Ant. seems to think the minority of the good people should overrule the common peoples,
aka the mob. It is doubtful Ant. would know the good people if they were in the same room.
The assumption that Ant. is one of the good people is simply slavish adoration. Also, the
only real meaning to "mob" is "collective noun for people rioting." An election is not a
riot. This is slander by some whose rancid contempt for humanity at large should be directed
first at Ant.
V. Putin said that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but... American journalists, of course,
are aware that this statement is unfounded, and, of course, is Russian disinformation.
Because V. Putin said this.
You seem to advocating the concept of mob rule. Do you understand that a popular opinion is
not necessarily a correct opinion?
Gee! And here I was under the impression that THE MAJORITY of the people equals democracy.
But because most Americans are nuts, Amerikkka, would be the exception to that rule.
By the same token, pretending the Electoral College equals democracy is also legitimizing
the fact that a few married cousin crazies and evangelized bible thumpers from sparsely
populated hicktowns and rednecks, and pretend gentry from the Confederacy have equal
representation to the most populated states in the Union.
Let me though make a precise evaluation: Crazytown U.S.A. imposed karma Trump on the
majority, because a big part of that majority betrayed liberal anti-war values to neoliberal
peace equals war Nobel drone Obama and neoliberal hawk Killary cackling like a shrew
at the Al-Qaeda gang slaughter of Gaddafi.
Now, Amerikka has a ZioCon for President that pardons and glorifies war criminals, that
arms a proxy war committing starvation genocide, that steals oil resources from Syria, that
wields economic tyranny against Venezuela and Iran for the purpose of regime change and
control of foreign energy riches, that is meddling in Lebannon, Iraq and Latin American
countries usurping the will of people, and who gives away territory in Syria and Palestine to
Zionists not to mention his fascist takeover of the Judiciary and and total ignorance of the
climate change threat.
So even though you're totally wrong on what democracy is, it doesn't matter, because
Amerikkka's majority is getting exactly what it deserves for having betrayed and surrendered
liberal values to Neocons like GWBush, Neolibs like Killary and all in service to Zionism and
Zionists like Kissinger and billionaires like Saban and Adelson and the corporate sheisters
on Wall Street.
Very few Americans have a mind of their own raised on the Zionist corporate media alphabet
soup that scrambles the brain. So you're right, the majority, deserve the Trump karma imposed
on them by the lowest crazy common denominator in Amerikkkan society promoted by the
Electoral College and who are the most useful idiots of Zionist supremacy.
And then everyone wonders about the growing desperation manifested by mass tent cities,
mass opiod consumption and mass incarceration. Amerikka is occupied and Trump is the enforcer
of the occupier.
Now try and find a more precise observation of the truth.
America is an insane asylum that masquerades as the "world's leading democracy."
This country is truly unhinged and lives in its own Orwellian reality. The
Ukraine/impeachment issue is only symptomatic of this broader pathology.
For the USA, it doesn't make a difference what actual reality is. What matters is that
America defines what counts as reality itself--not matter how ludicrous or fake it is.
As a former high-level Bush Regime openly admitted in an interview with journalist Ron
Suskind:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This American mentality is most evident in the USA's sociocidal wars of aggression around
the world and the lies that America peddles to pimp for its wars--as well as its political
balkanization, regime change, or destabilization campaigns that it dresses up
as"pro-Democracy"(TM) movements:
Mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
The fake War on Terrorism
The bogus War on Drugs
Humanitarian Intervention, or the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine
Freedom and Democracy
All-American Lies....
Americans truly are the people of the Big Lie.
There should be a Cordon Sanitaire placed around the United States (and its crime
partners/allies) to prevent this American plague from infecting the rest of the word.
@54 snake "Governed Americans and governed Russians should build a stadium, outfit the
personnel in Russian and USA governments, their think tanks and their intelligence services
with uniforms, lock the two opposed teams in the stadium, and sell the TV rights to pay off
the national debt of all of the nations of the world as these two teams as they fight it out
to the last man, woman and paper tiger warrior."
That's awesome! I was just listening to Devo's 1981 New Traditionalists album the other
day, and while I put it on to listen to "Beautiful World" ("It's a beautiful world, for
you...not me!"), the following song is "Enough Said" and these are the great lyrics:
"Take all the leaders from around the world
Put them together in a great big ring
Televise it as the lowest show on earth
And let them fight like hell to see who's king
Gather up the pieces when the fight is done
Then you'll find out living really can be fun
Enough said!"
You can find in youtube - too apropos to not share.
Jackrabbit 6
"took the black vote for granted"
So very true. Team HRC must have thought they could flip states like Pennsylvania by taking
the cities just like BHO did. Instead the states "deplorables" were dismissed. BHO did the
same but he had the cities in his pocket. But in today's PC hypocrisy, you can't point to
race as being a major factor.
psychohistorian 7
These NGOs and other organizations have an added influence on our politics. For some reason
the MSM doesn't mention them much. It's like the White Helmets. Search for their history at
YouTube and you get the official obfuscation. But toss in Purpose and AVAAZ and you find
more.
@ STJ #63> who wrote, inter alia> "reactionary scum like Walter are always liars." et
sec
Many thanks, Friend. As no doubt all here are well-aware, the resort to ad hominem occurs
when the speaker has no actual argument.
I am obliged. Glad you agree with Walter, and also very glad you do not like that...your
inner-conflict may be part of the dialectic. I hope it works out for you, Steve.
see, if you like, McHenry,"The American Historical Review", vol. 11, 1906 p 618
Here's another bull's eye observation: it's more efficient and cunning to manipulate through
social media tech-savvy means and other localized machinations the really susceptible, dumb,
but important groups in swing states made powerful by the Electoral College than to tackle
the opinion of the urban majority with a few critical articles and the appearance of a
pay-off ledger. Besides, the entirety of Europe was critical of candidate Trump. The
criticism of Trump was not specfic to Ukraine alone. So either the meddling was based on a
vast conspiracy of criticism or it was based on a campaign of targeted populist propaganda
directed at the right and working class together with a perfectly-timed leak that the DNC was
sabotaging Sanders cleverly meant to turn part of the left base against the Dem Party. I say
the latter.
Now don't try to convince me that Ukraine would meddle to turn the left base of the
Democratic side against Hillary when Ukraine preferred her. That logic just don't fly.
The question to ask is. Who had the unlimited financial resources, political connections
and tech savvy to pull the meddling off? I'll give you some clues: it's the usual suspect,
starts with Z and it's mostly based in Israel, the U.S. AND in the Russian oligarchy.
Trump is the Chosen Zionist President and there's nothing more to look at here. The
Ukraine and Russia factors are superfluous and moot to that over-arching FACT.
The most important thing is to learn to read and write.
Rhetoric and logic are important to follow after.
The basis of my comment is that I am currently reading Frederick Law Olmstead's The Cotton
Kingdom.
Fascinating. Unvarnished look at the antebellum South. There was a lot of variation among
states and communities. but the basics remain the same (he covers a very wide territory, both
geog. and intellectually and makes very detailed observations of all that he
encountered).
A huge factor (per FLO) in the mental, psychological, intellectual, economic etc
impoverishment of the South was a lack of any cultural institutions, people lived too far
apart to hire any kind of teachers, of course the slaves were virtually all of them also
uneducated. but in, say, South Caroline 25% of the whites also could not read or write or do
elementary sums.
As adults we all have the responsibility to (continue to) educate ourselves. I get nervous
when I hear people putting a pox on education per se. There are no guarantees when human
beings invent or are given various types of tools. Trying to win the argument by withholding
the provision or preventing the acquisition of tools sounds akin to considering people
"uppity" for using the intellectual tools they possess.
@uncle tungsten | Nov 24 2019 11:58 utc | 44 (the email affair and server)
Assume that the Bruce-Partington Submarine plans (Y'all know yer Holmes?) are under
control of Billary Jones, a senior official in an Imperial State. Billary needs money and has
guilty secrets. He's being blackmailed by Oberstein, a spy.
Jones then accidentally leaves the plans where Oberstein sees and photographs them.
Hi there Stevie...conflict is debilitating, eh? Find the Franklin quote yet? He was there,
and you? But I assume you haven't even realized it wuz Bennie F. Best o' luck.
(apologies to Conan Doyle)
69 Shmoe
Sorry about link not working. Esp since it was so long.
I usually activiate Google translate from a Google hit. But
I think you can also activate Google translate from the original webpage. This link pasted
into a new window (the URL space) did get me to the translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search
">https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search">https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search
In case that still does not work, type the title into your browser and then "translate."
If you use Google you should get a hit that shows the German title with "translate this page"
to the right.
Here is the title:
"Browder und das Magnitski-Narrativ: Ende einer Desinformationskampagne?"
Another way is to type "Google Translate German to English" into your browser. You get a
page with a box for German text on the left and English translation on the right.
There are 99 comments so far and a few posters are scratching their heads about what Der
Spiegel is up to with this apparent 180. So it might be interesting to paste a few of them
into Google translate. Here is one:
"What is going on at the mirror (Spiegel)? Since the well-established narrative has been
cultivated about the mean Russians since the founding and has been shown to 100%
transatlantic loyalty, now suddenly something like that. Is this just an accidental slip of
reason or is there more behind it?"
Google translate does make mistakes, beware. A typo can lead to absurdity.
Oh, and one more salient, obvious fact in the form of a question: Why would the biggest and
worst Neocon, Zionist shill in Congress, Lindsey Graham risk his dignity to such an extreme
to rescue Trump's ass if Trump were not the Chosen Zionist President??? ... I'm waiting...10,
9, 8...
Lindsey is the barometer of who and what Zionists want and because they want Trump over
Biden, Lindsey is now at war with his former Dem friend. Lindsey's a loyal subject of Zionism
that butters his bread and that's why he'll do anything to protect Trump.
Amazing really. Back some 3-4 years ago, the wiley Russians looked into the future to
understand that they needed to blame the Ukrainians for interfering in the election. They
predicted that deep state actors would reveal that Trump would in fact strong arm the
Ukrainians into revealing dirt on Joe Biden.
As for the teaching of classical Rhetoric and Logic. Absolutely. Give people the tools to
understand arguments and their validity. One of the best books I had and which I stupidly
lost was a compendium of rhetorical devices as labeled in the original Latin and Greek by
drunk monks of the Medieval Europe. It was just amazing how these rhetoricians drew up a
taxology of the various techniques and tropes--from honest to dishonest. A great toolkit.
"What is going on at the mirror (Spiegel)? Since the well-established narrative has been
cultivated about the mean Russians since the founding and has been shown to 100%
transatlantic loyalty, now suddenly something like that. Is this just an accidental slip of
reason or is there more behind it?"
@ Erelis | Nov 24 2019 19:32 utc | 79 There was once a defrocked Jesuit (with tenure at a
major university) who taught sodomy to the choir and rhetoric to his friends and those whom
he thought might be. He also favored snow... But...as you say, the original Latin and Greek.
A good man, but a pervert, and not a pederast. I liked the guy, and he knew his subject, ah,
the academic subject, to near perfection. He wrote speeches on the side for major political
figures, for cash. Thus in part did my own inability to suspend disbelief become cemented.
For money? Good thing they caught him...oh yeah, his popness also runs a cash an' carry,
don't he? Well, somebody said... (Like Martin Luther?)
Anyway the reason to study rhetoric is that it shall be used against you. Knowing the
Science and Art is your only safe defense, your only warning of true intent by rhetorical
analysis and logical deduction matching real events and actions. Without Rhetoric you are a
chump, a mark, a fool, and like sheep. Ewe! (haha) With it you can form reasoned ideas about
the future intention of any speaker. This may be useful.
The first test (since 2014) of any expert's credentials is his/her position on Crimea. The
next test is on Russian aggression.
If anyone suggests Crimea does not belong to Russia (most especially the federal district of
Sevastopol), then they are ignorant or lying.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Nov 23 2019 19:53 utc
I think that Red Rider is wrong here, starting from assumptions. One assumption is that
rather than status quo 1-5 years before the time we are making a judgment, we should look
back ca. 200 years etc. That could imply that India should belong to United Kingdom,
subsequent treaties notwithstanding.
Even more wrong is the hidden assumption that there should be some general principles that
guide "us" as to who owns what (they actually exist but wait) that hold regardless of
"Washington consensus". Perhaps using lower case in "us" was misleading. History explains the
ethnic and linguistic composition of Crimea etc. but really, everybody agrees the it is not
the only determinant. But let us consider some cases:
Annexation of Tuva and Sikkim. Somehow, nobody cares.
De-facto annexation of North Cyprus which now operates as a quasi-independent state fully
dependent on Turkey. Locals and Turks are satisfied, the rest of NATO and perhaps UN does not
recognize legality, but apart of Greek speaking countries, nobody makes a big deal out of it.
Sanctions? Hehe.
Annexation of Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Universal mild disapproval, except for USA
-- wholehearted approval there.
Crimea. Total need to apply severe sanction forever to maintain faith in "our"
principles.
Cynthia Chung invaded my brain and wrote the short essay that's been on the tip of my tongue
for some months now, "On
Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace'" . Within its body is linked two extremely important items,
the first being Elliott Roosevelt's book about his father Franklin As He Saw It (available limited
preview at link), and the second being an excerpt from that book of paramount
importance .
The more well known name of Churchill's "Sinews of Peace" speech is "The Iron Curtain
Speech" given at Fulton, Missouri on 5 March 1946, not quite 11 months after FDR's passing.
Here is the opening appetizer from that speech Chung bases the rest of her essay upon:
"This threatening message was not only meant for the Soviets, but was also directed to the
Americans and in between the lines Churchill stated ' Things are going to be very
different from now on. Your dead president cannot protect you any longer .' Some may be
surprised to hear such an aside comment, more likened to the outer ruminations of
Shakespeare's Iago." [My Emphasis]
Things did immediately become different. I consistently point out that the Evil Outlaw US
Empire immediately began violating the UN Charter and thus its own Constitution and Law of
the Land upon its coming into force; however, what I've neglected to point out until now is
that the UK also began violating it just as immediately as did France, although neither has
anything similar to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause that might be used to curb illegal
behavior. I often point to historical What Ifs? as in this case regarding the coup made
against Henry Wallace, FDR, and the wholesale overturning of the reasons given for waging the
war and winning the peace. Ms. Chung does an excellent job of highlighting what those were,
how they were smashed, and why. I really can't stress the great importance of her essay
enough; its educational importance is second to none! Read it, save it, make sure its read by
your entire family, take it to your kid's teachers, share it with everyone you know and those
you don't. The only people I can conceive of who wouldn't want to know its contents are
racists/imperialists--dare I say fascists--like Churchill. Three generations of people were
subjected to a geopolitical power play that never should have occurred--the deaths,
destruction, and wasted opportunities likely total in the Quadrillions of Dollars. I must
admit some admiration for Chung's an optimist as she clearly shows in her conclusion; my
adding it here in no way diminishes her essay's power and importance:
"The intended policies by Franklin D. Roosevelt for the post war world are still waiting
to be implemented today.
"So what can we the people do about this? We can wake up to the fact that this has
occurred and recognise that the mainstream presentation of world dichotomy today is just
continuing this sickly narrative. That Russia and China are not some monstrous race and that
we should weigh what is currently being offered as an olive branch with great and serious
reflection. That is namely the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road which also
applies immensely to the US.
"Let us not continue to remain shackled in despair and inaction but rather realise that
there is a great opportunity still for the Century of the Common Man."
Walter confirms being a liar when paragraphs of argument are miscalled "inter alia," then
ignored. The snide insult by the way functions as a fallacious ad hominem, doubly confirms
thatif Walter knows rhetoric, then Walter is doubly a liar. Last and least citing a 1906
volume of American Historical Review to someone who doesn't have university library access is
a snob's rudeness. I'm defeated by the puzzle of what Walter thinks Walter has to be snobby
about. A collection of American Historical Review isn't exactly nothing, but to get snobby
over it? Really?
"... "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia." ..."
"... Neocons resurrect tribal memories to fan the flames ..."
"... Imo Vindman's testimony revealed a 'personal' grudge against Russia. Hill also displayed a 'obsession' with Russia imo..... its interesting her Russian instructor at Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater. ..."
"... Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to. ..."
"... Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from), George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with exiles: ..."
"... Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100 politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone who is asking. A normal "I dont care about Atlantis" politican will see a fairly simple cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy. ..."
"... This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians who will underwrite things like "Atlantis delenda est", mostly because they dont actually care about Atlantis. ..."
"... I don't know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in the pay of foreign powers? ..."
"... Hillary Clinton shrieking about "Russia Wikileaks" seems to me to be pure projection and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of her campaign. ..."
"... Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the situation seems rather fluid at the moment...) is another motivation where Israel's interests loom large. ..."
"... A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German invasion was an opportunity to settle scores. ..."
"... I understand the hatred but not the application of "Nazi" to any Ukrainian thinking. If "Nazi" merely connotes "thuggish" then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted. ..."
"... Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland, is a descendant. ..."
"... After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN. ..."
"... The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis. For that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the neocons. I'll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn't Russia. It was Poland and the Jews. ..."
"... Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a 'good' guy? ..."
"... Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.Russia is far too important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy. ..."
"... As pointed out earlier - the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its exorbitant budgets. The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US politics. ..."
"... the Russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been unsuccessfully tried for centuries. ..."
"... The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended) and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland. ..."
"... I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of Victoria Nuland. What do US & UK hope to gain? I can't see any benefits. ..."
Giraldi suggests, "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are
merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia." That aligns more readily with
neocons' (and their oligarch supporters') psychopathic obsession with power and control via
the state. Giraldi also illustrates another more recent period in history when the neocons
were not decidedly anti-Russian:
In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly
Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the
resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms
about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think
tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal
goal of his government to turn off the money tap.
There was no monolithic 'Jewish Oligarch' club cashing in on Yeltsin's Russia. In the
broadest sense, the western neocon-friendly Russian-Jewish oligarch group(s) were booted out
by Putin, while rival group(s) stayed in Russia and submitted to Putin's reforms (whatever
that means). Saker has written in the past about the various Jewish oligarch factions in
Russia. It's complicated and beyond me.
Israel Shamir attempts to untangle the contradictory views on Ukraine from the State of
Israel, Ukrainian-Jewish oligarchs, neocons and Jews from the US, Ukraine and Russia:
Summary: 'Tribal' oversimplifies - no unified opinion. It's complicated. Mr. Shamir's
views seem reasonable and go a long way to explaining the contradictions to me.
Giraldi suggests, "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are
merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia."
I have a great deal of respect for Phil Giraldi but he is wrong here--it has nothing to do
with "Bolshevism", whatever that means in the American context, but with settling accounts
with 1930s purges of largely, not exclusively, Jewish Trotskists from the party and a
consistent anti-Zionist position of USSR till the every end. Now, with Russia effectively
de-fanging Israel, they go apoplectic. Modern neocons have zero relation to Bolshevism and if
they dream about anything--it is mostly have Russia gone as such.
''A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. .... Or, do
these people see Russia as a plausible geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as
simple, or simpleminded as that.''
Jews have next to zero political control in Russia and I do think that the Zionist see
Russia, as the only other superpower, as a hindrance to their aims for one thing.
Also any state where Jews 'lost out' is subject to vilification and branded as evil.
Imo Vindman's testimony revealed a 'personal' grudge against Russia. Hill also
displayed a 'obsession' with Russia imo..... its interesting her Russian instructor at
Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater.
As for the non Jewish Neos what would they do without a big scary enemy to fight?...they
might have to actually concentrate on doing things for America.
If anyone is interested here is a nice tool for following congressional bills and etc..
Mostly good for counting all the money they are giving away and the sanctions on countries
they are demanding....they aren't doing much of anything else in congress if you don't count
the kangaroo court circus.
How odd on PBS tonight - 'Secrets of Her Majesty's Secret Service" - an inside look at the
worlds only defense against Russia -a love letter to M16 and it nearly 100 year "special
relationship" with the US and CIA.
What strange timing for such a calculated PR piece for an extremely publicity shy Five
Eyes operation. Were they trying to get ahead of the coming Russiagate investigation reports
with this engaging documentary - we are in fact the James Bonds of the world and we know you
Americans love James Bond.
Anyone else see it or have I gotten aa sinister cabal derangement syndrome behind even PBS
"friendly" documentaries?
"A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia" Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are
essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to.
" Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals?" What's the evidence for this
persecution?
Essentially, when both 2 persons as contrary to each other as George Washington and
Niccolo Machiavelli agree on something, it behoves one well to listen.
Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you
into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from),
George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with
exiles:
Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care
about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are
at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government
is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host
nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100
politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean
government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone
who is asking. A normal "I dont care about Atlantis" politican will see a fairly simple
cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in
return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy.
This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the
exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians
who will underwrite things like "Atlantis delenda est", mostly because they dont actually
care about Atlantis.
This is not a specifically US thing at all. My understanding is that Russias WW1 decision
to back Serbia was considerably influenced by a group of ethnically serbian/Montenegrin
advisors (who, one has to say were otherwise loyal to Russia, and had fought with distinction
in the Tsars wars, shedding their blood for Russia).
I don't know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was
domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect
criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual
suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in
the pay of foreign powers?
Hillary Clinton shrieking about "Russia Wikileaks" seems to me to be pure projection
and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of
her campaign.
Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the
situation seems rather fluid at the moment...) is another motivation where Israel's interests
loom large.
It also seems to me to be stunningly stupid to have thrown away any potential alliance
with Russia in favor of promoting Wahabist scum. And forcing Russia into the arms of the
Chinese instead of recruiting them into the containment cordon.
Anyway, speaking as a denizen of Plato's cave, without direct knowledge of the reality of
the thing it's mostly educated guesses on my part...
A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that
I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians
served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National
Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German
invasion was an opportunity to settle scores.
I understand the hatred but not the application of "Nazi" to any Ukrainian thinking. If
"Nazi" merely connotes "thuggish" then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I
suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted.
Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the
very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland,
is a descendant.
Folks like Freeland openly credit her SS grandfather for her ideology. When speaking in
public, she does then to conveniently omit his services to the national Socialist state.
Try Stephan Bandera, he was as bad of a figure as what the Russians accused him of being.
Bandera's legacy was that of a Nazi sympathizer and a real nut case too boot. He was one sick
twisted individual.
After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN.
These Russian hating individuals that composed the far-right Nazi resurgence in the Ukraine
government, started terrifying the Russian enclaves in the Crimea, and those enclaves in turn
called on their fellow Russian brothers in Russia for help, to which Putin and the Russian
military came to their aid and the annexation of the Crimea by Russia took place so as to
protect the Russian enclaves from further persecution by the Banderites. Bandera posters
became more and more prevalent. The Euromaidan protests turned more and more violent, the
wolfsangel that was formerly a symbol of the SS but was now taken up by the Azov Battalion
and other militias, the old OUN war cry of "Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes" that was
now ubiquitous among anti-Yanukovych protesters.
Here's some further reading regarding Stephan Bandera:
The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis. For
that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the
neocons. I'll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say
that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn't Russia. It was
Poland and the Jews.
That's a very interesting write up at Zerohedge. I believe we discussed the same conduct,
though not the depth of corruption of US politicians, here while that was happening. The borg
are starting to panic with the threat of a real investigation.
Thank you for the posting and thank all for the comments.
Some of us out here in The Middle can't really understand any of the behaviors of those
good and not-so-good Swamp dwellers (any more than we can understand the behaviors of the La
La Land Californian politicians.
I understand more about the issues involving our relationship with Ukraine by reading this
post and comments than I ever would have been able to since I simply don't have time to get
large books and many detailed published papers to read.
Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in
State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a 'good' guy?
The US's 'independent' multi-national force NATO would clearly no longer be needed, so
many years after the Warsaw Pact dissolved. Whilst the US 'occupation' forces all over the
place, but especially in Europe, could return home to the US.
Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.Russia is far too
important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy.
Indeed, its boom time as China related structures are expanding in parallel rather than
replacing those directed at Russia.
As pointed out earlier - the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its
exorbitant budgets. The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a
Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US
politics.
There are too many business ties with China, and our supply chains reach too deeply into
that country, for it to serve as a Big Enemy without causing serious disruption.
the reasons for the agreed upon antipathy towards Russia is imo not the actual reason for the
hostilities that have existed for at least the last 100 years and actually much longer.
the Russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the
planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards
russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been
unsuccessfully tried for centuries.
why complicate matters when simple greed answers so many of the questions asked about WHY
the west hates russia.
The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended)
and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland.
I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of
Victoria Nuland. What do US & UK hope to gain? I can't see any benefits.
The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval, U.S. officials said, as
Kiev battles Russia-backed separatists and ties between Moscow and Washington fray.
American military officials and diplomats say the arms, which they characterized as
defensive, are meant to deter aggressive actions by Moscow, which the U.S. and others say has
provided tanks and other sophisticated armaments as well as military advisers to rebels
fighting the Kiev government.
Arming Ukraine remains a bad, foolish idea for all the reasons I have given before.
Advocates of sending weapons say that it will serve as a deterrent, but it will almost
certainly be perceived as a provocation by Moscow and could easily serve as a pretext for more
aggressive behavior from Russia and its proxies. Ukraine will not be made more secure by doing
this, and the U.S. has no obligation to help defend Ukraine in any case, but the bigger problem
with the proposal is that it has nothing to do with promoting U.S. or allied security. Some of
our most important European allies, including Germany and France, understand this, and have
opposed the same idea in the past.
Sending more weapons into Ukraine risks reigniting and escalating the conflict at the same
time that it deepens U.S. involvement in it. It would antagonize Russia while further
entangling the U.S. in a conflict in which we have no vital interests. If Russia responds in
kind or with an even more aggressive response, the U.S. can't credibly threaten to counter them
because Ukraine will always matter far more to them than it does to us. The White House should
reject the latest misguided proposal to send arms to Ukraine.
P.S. Leonid Bershidsky
spells out why sending weapons to Ukraine is also unnecessary:
Two years after both sides have largely kept to existing demarcation lines (minor
encroachments aside), it is militarily unnecessary to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons
unless the U.S. wants to encourage it to try to reclaim the "people's republics." That would
be a mistake. Though Russia doesn't have enough resources to take over and hold Ukraine while
still staying on the lookout for other military threats, it has plenty of money, firepower
and determination to defend the separatist statelets.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he
also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email
'Did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo?'
Former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker: 'No.'
Devin Nunes to Tim Morrison, former NSC official: 'Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or
extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?'
'No.'
This follows the responses of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the question of
whether he was offered a quid pro quo: US aid in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden's
corrupt dealings with the natural gas company Burisma: 'No.'
Ditto Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union: was there a quid pro quo: 'No.'
(Sondland's testimony has just begun at the time of writing: rest assured it will be more of
the same.)
Last week's hearings were preposterous, a disaster for the Democrats. This week's hearings
are shaping up to be even worse news for the partisans of the Adam Schiff Show.
Remember that old hippie slogan, ' suppose they gave a war
and nobody came? ' It's been updated and applied not to international conflicts but
partisan intramural sniping: suppose they gave a hearing and nobody came?
For that's the truth of the matter. The ratings for this reality TV show are in the tank.
During Watergate, during the Clinton impeachment, people were glued to the news. Now, despite
the screaming CNN chyrons, anti-Trump Washington Post and New York Times sermons,
nobody cares.
The Adam Schiff Show is playing to itself. Even the president has realized that it is 98.6
percent farce, 1.4 percent menace. Hence his little taunts. Some Dems say
Trump should testify , assuming the 'offer' will be brusquely ignored. But Trump calls
their bluff: 'Even though I did nothing wrong,' the president tweeted , 'and
don't like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order
to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!'
That was the last you'll hear about asking Trump to testify.
And now there are reports that Trump is actively supporting impeachment. You read
that right: 'The impeachment hearings have been thrown into chaos after President Trump
announced that he supports impeachment, forcing Democrats to oppose their own impeachment
inquiry.'
OK, that last is from the
Babylon Bee , a source that is only marginally more reliable than The New York
Times.
It is a mark of the way we live now that articles in the Babylon Bee are often
indistinguishable in terms of their credibility from articles in the supposedly mainstream
media.
The Adam Schiff Show's star witness yesterday was the pathetic Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman --
and that's
Lt. Col. not 'Mr', buddy, and don't you forget it!
Some news reports say that his testimony provided nuggets for the Dems as well as
exculpatory statements for Republicans. For example, the Lt. Col. said that he thought that
Trump's request that President Zelensky investigation local corruption was 'an implied "demand"
because of the "power disparity" between the two leaders.'
So its's come to this. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the public transcript of the July
call between President Trump and President Zelensky was accurate; he confirmed that US aid was
being held up not because of a quid pro quo but because of an OMB review to be sure its was
consistent with administration policies; he confirmed, too, that he saw no evidence of
bribery.
And this was Adam Schiff Show's 'star witness', the modern major general -- well, Lt. Col.
-- who was going to drop the bombshell that would galvanize the Democratic case for
impeachment.
Not hardly.
But mention of 'bribery' reminds me of a fact that has been little remarked. Like many
organizations, the Adam Schiff Show has begun distributing pocket editions of the US
Constitution. There are some novelties about it, however. For example, in Article II, Section
4, most editions read:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
The Adam Schiff Show version is more capacious:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, Mean Tweets,
Policies we do not approve of, Rogue Telephone Calls, being Elected without Our Permission, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
I do not write in jest. You may not be able to find printed copies of the Adam Schiff Show
Constitution (including the Declaration of Dependency), but my transcription of the bit about
impeachment is an accurate transcription of the sentiment that informs it.
Lt. Col. Vindman loves his uniform -- all those medals and embroidery -- and he thought that
Donald Trump was contravening the policies endorsed by the National Security Council. That is
the essence of his complaint.
But that is just too bad for the Lt. Col. He does not set the policies. The president of the
United States does.
The president of the United States, it pains me to inform Lt. Col. Vindman, is Donald J.
Trump. He may not like that. He may think Donald is crude or wrong or ill-informed or out of
touch. That doesn't matter. He is the president. Lt. Col. Vindman's job is to carry out the
policies formulated by the president, to offer advice and counsel when asked, and otherwise to
get with the program or get out of government.
An unanswered question is why the Democrats are proceeding with this destructive farce, so
damaging to the authority of Congress and the national interest. Apart from the news rooms of
the anti-Trump press and the activist cells of 'The Resistance', it has become increasingly
clear over the past week that most of the country is either uninterested in the hearings or
actively hostile to the patent effort to smear a duly elected president.
It has been clear from the outset that the impeachment hearings are a desperate reprise of
the Russian Collusion Hoax -- an effort to stymie, distract, hamper, and ultimately to destroy
a political rival of whom the Democrats and the NeverTrump Right does not approve.
But in weaponizing the threat of impeachment -- an instrument of last resort intended by the
Founders to be a safety check against the most serious sorts of malfeasance -- by deploying
impeachment for nakedly partisan purposes because the president may (but on the evidence did
not) say something which, if interpreted with sufficient malice and hermeneutical ingenuity,
might just be construed to hint at a possibly (but probably not) inappropriate request for a
favor -- to deploy the awesome machinery of impeachment and spark such 'mighty contests from
trivial things' is a disgusting abuse of power and betrayal of the public trust.
The people understand this. Adam Schiff, drunk on his new-found celebrity and (quite
temporary) fund-raising prowess has so far failed to take it on board. The reckoning, however,
is just around the corner. The White House has slyly signaled its glee about how the farcical
impeachment hearings are proceeding. If he took his duties as a public servant to heart, Adam
Schiff would understand the peril he has brought upon his party and the disservice he has done
the country by transforming his tenure in Congress into a partisan freak show.
'If'. Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The Adam Schiff Show is falling apart
before our eyes. Like a television franchise that has jumped the shark, the Democrats thought
they could transform this tawdry revenge fantasy into reality. It isn't working. The
interesting next episode will be all about damage control. How exactly the Democrats will move
to extricate themselves from this ill-advised plot is yet to be seen. But I predict that by the
New Year the impeachment frenzy of 2019 will be consigned to the rancid attic of misbegotten
partisan schemes. No Democrat will want to be reminded of it and poor Adam Schiff will take his
mad stare to those out-of-the-way, depopulated venues where embarrassing politicians go while
waiting to be swallowed up by oblivion.
Russian officials said Saturday that the U.S. decision to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons to
combat Russian-backed separatists will cause new bloodshed, as long-standing tensions between Washington and Moscow
escalated over the four-year-old conflict.
Moscow's admonition came shortly after the State Department announced Friday evening that the
United States will provide heavy armaments to Ukraine for the first time, a step up from the support equipment and
training offered so far. A statement by spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the weapons were defensive in nature, "as
part of our effort to help Ukraine build its long-term defense capacity, to defend its sovereignty and territorial
integrity, and to deter further aggression."
On Wednesday, Washington said it had approved an export license allowing the sale of light
weapons and small arms to Ukraine from commercial U.S. manufacturers.
"... Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types zerohedge ..."
"... Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU." This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in WW2. Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS. Some might think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by neo-Nazis? ..."
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had
negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran's democratically elected Government wasn't
revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a
'democratic revolution' in Iran . Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long
time, and not only about 'WMD in Iraq'. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup
in Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in
the case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying , at deceiving , at manipulating , its public, no less now than it was then .
Without
understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of
honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but
of different types zerohedge
-----------------
Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU."
This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons
and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in
WW2. Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS. Some might
think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by
neo-Nazis?
There is the awkward issue of the Donbas industrial region in east Ukraine. The people there
are mostly Orthodox Christians in contrast to the Galicians who claim to be my
co-coreligionists in the embrace of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Well, they are
demographically that at least. The east Ukrainians prefer Russia, poor fools. The extent of
Russian government intervention in the east is unclear to me. It is likely that it extends to
equipment, ammunition and training, at least that.
A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. Is it a group
memory of Tsarist pograms that eats at them? Israel does not seem to have a special problem
with modern Russia. Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals? There are a lot of
LGBTQ supporters among the two groups. Or, do these people see Russia as a plausible
geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as simple, or simpleminded as that. The
undying USSR as chimera? Perhaps it is that. pl
The dichotomy between the fairly good relations Russia has with Israel compared to the
States has long seemed peculiar. There are a lot of Russian Jewish ex-pats in Israel and
quite a few in the USA though I think most of those here arrived earlier than the ones in
Israel.
In spite of the wide perception here of official suppression of Jews in Russia reality
perhaps differs.
Amy Chua, in writing her book "World on Fire" recounts her Jewish husband's response when
she discovered 6 of the 7 principal oligarchs were Jewish. He raised an eyebrow and said:
"Only 6?"
The oligarchs were extremely unpopular in Russia. Some of these oligarchs have since been
purged while others re-aligned from Yeltsin to Putin.
The book is a good read about different economically dominant minorities around the
World.
Regarding the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward
Russia, I think it might have something to do with all those Merkavas taken out by Kornets in
2006.
Well, there would be the mindset that gave rise to the Wolfowitz doctrine--a fear and
loathing of near-peer competitors. Rage at having had them down and a boot at their throats
under Yeltsin, only for them to get up off the mat. When you think of how much insulted
hubris goes into the rage against Iran after the humiliation of the Embassy takeover and
eviction. Then there is Putin's assertion of primacy over the West-aided pillage by Russia's
own oligarchs. His reading of the riot act to them, not few of whom were Jewish. Another
unforgivable sin. And perhaps more than anything the example he sets of patriotic resistance
to transnational oligarchy. And now they are beginning to hand out some diplomatic and
military ass-kickings, if war is an extension of policy, they seem to have established
military doctrine that actually serves to support diplomatic and political campaigns, rather
than the reverse. Anyway, a few thoughts...
A rabid neocon Max Boot view looks identical to Vindman views.
The article was written one year after the February 2014 coup. The logic is simple and flawed
anything that cause casualties for Russia is good for the USA. This WaPo chickenhawk "military
analyst" is simply incapable to ask a simple question: Why Russia stopped in seizing all southern
Ukraine just after the coup, when it has both the opportunities and the support of local
population to do do. They can easily for Ukrainian government in exile, who would ask for
military aid and provide this military aid on completely legitimate basis. Nobody in NATO would
even sqeek. And if Russia in interested in the preservation of the Ukrainian state, why to
antagonize it, which might prompt it to change its mind.
A distinguished group of former government officials, including former NATO commander Adm.
Jim Stavridis, Obama's former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, Obama's former NATO
ambassador Ivo Daalder, and Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, have
just issued a report calling for the provision of arms to Ukraine. They
write :
The U.S. government should provide Ukraine $1 billion in military assistance as soon as
possible in 2015, followed by additional tranches of $1billion in FY 2016 and FY 2017.
Additional non-lethal assistance should include: counterbattery radars, unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs),
electronic counter-measures for use against opposing UAVs, secure communications
capabilities, armored
Humvees and medical support equipment.
Lethal defensive military assistance should include light anti-armor missiles, given the
large numbers of armored vehicles that the Russians have deployed in Donetsk and Luhansk and
the abysmal condition of the Ukrainian military's light anti-armor weapons.
... ... ...
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of the
forthcoming bookThe Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in
Vietnam(Liveright, 2018).
"... The most recent evidence of this was the bizarre incident earlier this week, confirmed by the government in Kiev , where 311 Ukrainian troops of the 72 nd Army brigade laid down their arms and crossed the border into Russia. Moscow's claim that they were trying to defect is suspect, especially since dozens of the troops have reportedly returned to Ukraine. Kiev argues that the troops simply ran out of ammunition. ..."
"... To complicate matters, the Ukrainian army is supported by private paramilitary groups, including both the large Donbass Batallion and a number of smaller and less formal groups based in various towns in the region. Some have already entered the heavily populated area around Donetsk. While their political sympathies lie with Kiev, these militias are not under Kiev's command and control, and certainly have not undergone any professional unit training. U.S.-supplied weapons might end up in their hands, as well, with unpredictable consequences. ..."
"... It would be tragic if U.S.-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes will be coaxed back into a unified Ukrainian state. ..."
The following is a guest post from Barnard College, Columbia University, political scientist
Kimberly Marten.
*****
Last week the Democratic Party publicly split over the wisdom of sending lethal military assistance to Ukraine. The Obama administration
is reportedly sharing some intelligence and non-lethal equipment (like night-vision goggles and armored vehicles) with the Ukrainian
army, and is preparing to up its support for Ukrainian National Guard training. But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl
Levin joined prominent Republicans in asking Obama to go further. He
called
for defensive weapons to be sent to Kiev , including ammunition and anti-aircraft missiles, after a closed-door briefing with
Pentagon officials.
Demands for U.S. weapons support will likely grow as Russia's troop buildup along the border continues and the threat of open
warfare between the two countries increases. Obama himself has
hinted that weapons might be sent if Russia invades Ukraine. Republican Sen. John McCain accused the Obama administration of
kowtowing to Moscow and being
"cowardly"
for not sending arms already in mid-July.
But the U.S. should think twice about sending weapons to Kiev. This has nothing to do with Russia -- and everything to do with
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian military is not a well-disciplined or cohesive force. Its troops have made amazing progress in the past several
months, taking back Slovyansk and other eastern territories from the rebels. They have begun shelling rebel strongholds in Donetsk,
one of the most important targets in the campaign to retake eastern Ukraine. But their tremendous battle achievements have come in
spite of weak preparation and professionalism. This means that the United States would find itself with little control over how its
weapons might be used on the ground.
The most recent evidence of this was the bizarre incident earlier this week,
confirmed by the
government in Kiev , where 311 Ukrainian troops of the 72 nd Army brigade laid down their arms and crossed the border
into Russia. Moscow's claim that they were trying to defect is suspect, especially since dozens of the troops have reportedly returned
to Ukraine. Kiev argues that the troops simply ran out of ammunition.
Whatever the correct explanation turns out to be, it is odd that large units, presumably commanded by at least mid-level officers,
would try to escape rebel fire by seeking protection on enemy territory. At best it indicates poor logistical and operational planning.
At worst it means that weapons sent by the United States to Ukraine might well end up in rebel or Russian hands. There are
conflicting reports
about whether the border-crossing troops destroyed their weapons, or instead left them on the field for rebels to pick up.
Beyond any question of poor decision-making by the Ukrainian troops involved in this particular event, many Western analysts believe
that
the Ukrainian military is penetrated by a web of Russian intelligence agents . Its roots as an institution date to the Soviet
era, and the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991 was followed by a chaotic period where patriotism and even citizenship
were ill-defined across the post-Soviet space. Under the previous regime of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich the
Russian and Ukrainian militaries cooperated in some areas, and the defense industries of the two countries co-produced some weapons.
It is not surprising that some members of the Ukrainian military organization would have ambiguous emotions or competing loyalties
in the current conflict. Indeed a number of Ukrainian officers defected to the Russian side during Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea
this past spring.
But the lack of discipline and professionalism goes further. There have been numerous cases, well documented by Western journalists,
of Ukrainian forces firing on civilians in recent months.
Human Rights Watch believes
that indiscriminate rocket fire used by Ukrainian or pro-Kiev forces in Donetsk has killed over a dozen civilians in violation
of international laws of war. The New York Times reports that
the Ukrainian army probably shelled
a Donetsk dental clinic by accident on Wednesday.
To complicate matters, the Ukrainian army is supported by private paramilitary groups, including both the large
Donbass Batallion and a number of
smaller and less formal groups
based in various towns in the region. Some have
already entered the heavily populated area around Donetsk. While their political sympathies lie with Kiev, these militias are
not under Kiev's command and control, and certainly have not undergone any professional unit training. U.S.-supplied weapons might
end up in their hands, as well, with unpredictable consequences.
It would be tragic if U.S.-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes
will be coaxed back into a unified Ukrainian state. Moscow would have a field day in its local propaganda war if that happened. And
if U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of pro-Kiev non-state militias, it would take away the moral authority that Washington has
in criticizing Moscow's supply of weapons to the anti-Kiev militias. The further strengthening of non-state violent actors in Ukraine
-- even those currently fighting on the side of the government -- boosts the likelihood that the state will ultimately fail in a
flurry of local warlordism.
Until the Ukrainian military achieves a higher degree of discipline and cohesion, the U.S. needs to concentrate on helping train
those troops, not arm them. A professional army, subservient to democratic civilian authority, is one of the best guarantees of a
strong Ukrainian state in the future. Defeating Russian incursions on to Ukrainian territory might bring a short-lived sense of victory
to the American public, but immediate military gains will be meaningless if Ukrainian state security forces cannot gain legitimacy
and trust in the areas they are now trying to recapture.
Should the United States be sending hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal weaponry to
Ukraine? That's not a policy discussion we've heard aired in the past two weeks. This seems
odd, because the provision of such lethal weaponry is at the center of the rapidly-unfolding
Trump/Ukraine/impeachment drama. Trump is accused of withholding 'aid' for the purpose of
'pressuring' Ukranian authorities to carry out investigations that advance his political
interests. At least at first blush, it's a valid matter for inquiry. But what about the 'aid'
itself?
First off, 'aid' is a strangely euphemistic term to
describe high-powered anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles to be used
for the express purpose of causing death and destruction, prolonging a Cold War-style proxy
conflict between the US and Russia. That's another layer of irony, because Trump spent the
first two-plus years of his presidency being maligned as a devious colluder with Putin. Yet
here he is dispatching state-of-the-art weapons systems directly into Russia's immediate sphere
of influence. (Despite the political consternation over how the 'aid' came to be sent,
it has in fact been sent .)
The Wall Street Journal notes that the 'aid' program 'enjoys strong support on both
sides of the aisle' -- which should automatically raise red flags. Typically when an issue
becomes safely ensconced in the realm of 'bipartisan consensus' it means something sinister is
afoot. Forgotten is the fact that Barack Obama repeatedly
refused to send 'aid' of this kind, much to his credit given the dangerous geopolitical
implications. But does that mean now that the previous president had an intolerable, fringe
position on the subject? You'd never know, because the policy substance has been entirely
obscured in favor of omni-directional partisan bluster. 'Progressives' now appear to view
arming Ukraine as an intrinsic good, and conservatives/libertarians have no intelligible view
except insofar as it casts Trump's behavior in the most favorable possible light. Meanwhile
Cold War 2.0 rages on and no one cares -- other than for how it affects the latest
impeachment-frenzied news cycle.
You want to accuse Trump of corruption? Fine. Take a look at his special envoy to Ukraine,
Kurt Volker, who resigned in the heat of the latest Trump/Zelensky phone call episode. That
Volker was ever appointed to that position is almost comically
corrupt . He's the executive director of the McCain Institute, which is funded by defense
contractor behemoth Raytheon, and a lobbyist for BGR Group, which is also of course
Raytheon-funded. In his capacity as 'special envoy' he advocated for the swift dispensation of
'aid' -- which just so happens to enrich Raytheon. But Volker is only considered noteworthy
because he's provided
salacious texts to Congress, not because he's emblematic of quintessential 'swamp-like'
corruption. That enterprise, after all, is wholly bipartisan and therefore of little
interest.
Sending large amounts of lethal weaponry into a hot war scenario on Russia's border
(presumably in perpetuity) has now been sanctified as conventional wisdom. Democrats love it
because it hamstrings Trump politically, and they can insinuate that his temporary withholding
of the 'aid' helped Russia. Republicans love it because it shows Trump is 'tough on Russia' and
'tough' in general, and very eager to do whatever's necessary to drive up defense industry
profits. The impeachment fracas will leave no room for any dispassionate evaluation of the
wisdom of this policy. Oh well.
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
He testified that the Iraq war would be "self financing" his reward for that brilliant bit of financial prediction was to be put
in charge of the World Bank. Can't say that the powers that be don't have a sense of humor.
"Next time, however, will be without the local allies we need."
Wolfowitz still doesn't get it, does he? There will be no "next time". Our so-called "local allies" will fight their own fights
using weapons they paid for themselves. We're going to stop squandering trillions on foreign messes and start fixing our own.
I remember that guy. I listened to him and his ilk in 2003.
Yeah, not doing that again. However I have to admire the cheek of him taking money to pretend to be an expert.
Wolfowitz and NYT: It cannot get much sicker and enraging than this but what more can one expect from the NYT.
Wolfowitz belongs back under a rock where he has been since the war crime of Iraq for which he is at least partially responsible.
The NYT, well leave it in the bottom of a bird cage where it has earned a historical place foreever. Absolutely no credibility
nor respect.
Peace with honor.
Remember that? I assume at the very bottom of it, keeping the war running is better to people like W. than to claim this kind of peace!
I completely agree.
The problem is bipartisan. There are a handful of principled antiwar politicians in both parties, but most are not. The Democrats
now oppose the war in Yemen, but as I predicted to myself ( possibly online somewhere under a different name) they would wait
a year or so until it was safe to pretend it was Trump's war. Well, it is his war now, but it didn't start that way.
I would love to see the day when a President would be impeached for participating in or supporting or starting an unjust war.
I would like to see State Department officials resigning in protest. Trump in my opinion is guilty of pressuring Ukraine and yes,
this is impeachable, but why are we arming them in the first place?
At risk of repeating myself:
Unless and until those responsible for the wars start facing very real and very personal consequences, nothing will change.
Mr. Larison is writing as if he appears to be taking seriously Mr. Wolfovitz. Attacking Iraq on fabricated pretenses, which everyone
at his level knew was fabrication is same as Hitler attacking Poland on the faked attack of a German border post by German soldiers
dressed in Polish uniforms.
By international law (if it were a higher power out there), Wolfowitz et. co. are war criminals and no attention should be
given to their utterances and be switched with the inmates at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely.
What needs to be investigated though is the purpose of these utterances, the narrative that it creates (which, to be honest,
Mr. Larison does). The narrative that comes across is the how exceptionally criminal the US Government (not the people!) in its
dealings with the outside world. And Mr. Wolfowitz has the gall to uphold this criminal behaviour as pace making. Doublespeak
through and through.
"The U.S. is never "sucked back in." Our government goes running back in at the first chance it gets. Sometimes this is driven
by threat inflation, sometimes it is driven by headlines that prompt calls for "action," sometimes it is driven by a misguided
need to show "leadership," and sometimes it is just old-fashioned "do-somethingism" where the U.S. intervenes because it can."
You forgot the wide range of black ops that are used to manipulate public opinion. I don't know why this shouldn't be acknowledged,
at least as a category if not in terms of specifics. The US institutionalized covert operations on a massive scale after WWII,
which has created a serious epistemological problem. Even if you aren't going to cite the OPCW reports doubting Assad's responsibility
for the use of chemical weapons within Syria or specifically mention CIA Operation Timber-Sycamore, it makes all the sense in
the world to acknowledge that covert operations, as a generic fact of life, really confuse how we should adjudicate responsibility
for acts of war. This is just prudence.
"... For the last twenty years Ukraine and Belarus have kept NATO and Russian forces far apart. This was an underappreciated benefit. NATO's flirtation with admitting Ukraine into the alliance simply ignored the new risks that would be assumed. If Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine, we would return to this unhappy standoff. ..."
"... If Ukraine falls into civil war, with Russia and the West aiding their respective favorites, the risk of a direct NATO-Russia clash also rises. To ensure peace between Russia and the West, the question of foreign alignment should be taken out of Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Barry R. Posen is Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT and Director of their Security Studies Program. He is the author of Restraint- A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy . ..."
"If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to "fall" to Russia, it would have little impact on
the security of the United States."
Once, foreign policy experts talked about "vital interests." The term has fallen into
disuse, partly because there are no hard and fast rules for calculating what distinguishes the
"vital" from the merely "interesting." If advocates wanted their country to do a thing they
would call it a vital interest; if they did not, then they would not. But students of foreign
policy did seem to agree on one thing: vital interests were the things you were willing to have
your soldiers die for and kill for. By this measure, even the most hawkish politicians in the
United States, all of whom have eschewed any desire for a shooting match, have agreed that the
United States has no vital interests in Ukraine.
What would vital interests look like if they were present? Vital interests affect the
safety, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and power position of the United States, or indeed
of any country. If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to "fall" to Russia, it would have
little impact on the security of the United States. Russia is no longer the strong country that
the USSR was: its GDP is dwarfed by that of the United States. Its non-nuclear military power
is woefully insufficient for the conquest of the major states of Eurasia. The possession of
Crimea, a grab for Ukraine's eastern provinces, or even the occupation of all Ukraine would not
change this. Indeed, the military conquest of Ukraine would be costly to Russia because as one
moves westward, one encounters ever-more-nationalistic Ukrainians, who have a historical
propensity to fight. Russian forces facing west would find themselves with a fifth column in
their rear.
Geography alone can sometimes create a vital interest. If Ukraine were Mexico, the United
States would have an interest in protecting it from Russia or anyone else. For Russia, Ukraine
is Mexico, and in their eyes, the United States and its Western allies have been inexorably
creeping in their direction since the end of the Cold War. Russian interests in Ukraine
probably exceed NATO's, which is why modest sanctions are unlikely to coerce Russia into
passivity. They do not want Western political, economic, and military power on their border. Of
course, the easternmost members
of NATO would not like Russian forces on their doorstep , but because they are all too weak
to defend themselves, or too confident in the United States to bother, their security depends
much more on whether the United States will make good on its alliance commitments than on
whether Russia shares a border.
The United States does have one security interest in Ukraine. Though it is not a vital
interest, the preservation of an independent
neutral zone between NATO and Russian military forces has been a stabilizing factor in
east-west relations. During the Cold War, especially in Germany, NATO and Soviet forces faced
each other head to head. Even their non-nuclear forces had powerful offensive capabilities --
thousands of tanks and aircraft that could strike deeply into the other's territory. The two
sides also possessed large numbers of nuclear weapons, and had the command, control and plans
in place to use them if necessary. This was a nervous relationship, fraught with the
possibility of escalation and mutual disaster. This is a world that neither we nor the Russians
should wish to recreate, even with the diminished forces Russia now possesses. The United
States and its allies succeeded in managing this for forty years, and we could do it again if
we had to. So preventing this is "nice to have" but not "need to have." Indeed, trying to
prevent it by force brings on the very thing we should wish to avoid. But maintaining a wide
military buffer zone is a real security interest, and the only one worth pursuing in
Ukraine.
For the last twenty years Ukraine and Belarus have kept NATO and Russian forces far apart.
This was an underappreciated benefit. NATO's flirtation with admitting Ukraine into the
alliance simply ignored the new risks that would be assumed. If Russia were to occupy all of
Ukraine, we would return to this unhappy standoff. If NATO forces were to help Ukraine resist
Russia militarily, we would also return to this situation. This is neither in Russia's
interests, nor in ours. It is far better to negotiate a mutual "hands off Ukraine" agreement.
Diplomacy, sanctions (and the threat of more), and economic assistance (bribes) to Ukraine are
the tools that the West should use to restore the status quo ante.
Western liberals will be quick to decry any security agreement reached over the heads of the
Ukrainians. The crisis in Ukraine, however, is a direct consequence of the fact that Ukrainians
do not agree on the extent to which they should be associated with the West or with Russia.
This disagreement threatens to tear the country apart. If Ukraine falls into civil war, with
Russia and the West aiding their respective favorites, the risk of a direct NATO-Russia clash
also rises. To ensure peace between Russia and the West, the question of foreign alignment
should be taken out of Ukrainian politics.
It does serves the interests of military-industrial complex. And this is all that matters.
Notable quotes:
"... IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic "Lebensraum" into xUSSR space. ..."
"... In this sense, Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor Cohen: ..."
While the discussion of this issue on emotional level is clearly fun, the key question here is: did the economic conditions
in the USA changed in a way that the majority of population from now on will consistently support a far right party (or a far
right faction within the Republican Party).
And to support far right (neofascist) ideas as a reaction to the process of sliding standard of living and the lack of job
opportunities in conditions of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and the associated process of de-legitimization of neoliberal
elite (Schiff)
Marxism used to teach us that the way people live define the way people think ;-)
I am also alarmed at the support of Ukrainegate among esteemed commentariat. When you consider "military assistance" as the
way to pressure the country, the first thing to discuss is whether this military assistance serves the USA national interests
or not. This was not done.
IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far
right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part
of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic
"Lebensraum" into xUSSR space.
This was the case, long before Trump, when the USA demonstrated clearly neofascist tendencies in foreign policy. In this sense,
Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor
Cohen:
The deep state and associated political forces of neocons/neolibs is a serious problem that
threatens the USA national security. Weapons send to Ukraine can go anywhere. Risk of WWIII and
total wipeout of both the USA and Russia (and well as NATO countries in Europe) from the face of
Earth also increase.
Notable quotes:
"... All about welfare for the military industrial complex and fomenting war. ..."
Aaron Mate's Pushback show is probably one of the best shows on US and world politics out
there: my only complaint is that there are not more episodes.
Keeping the masses poor through military spending, and focused on an external bogeyman is
just a strategy the morbidly rich employ to prevent a more equitable and rational
distribution of wealth at home
"... Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea what the truth is. And the questions raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the cause of the truth ..."
"... Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation. ..."
"... America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace makers..." ..."
"... An interesting quote found in the book from a surprising source, Henry Kissinger: "The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for not having one." And then notes Cohen, "But Kissinger was also wrong. Washington has made many policies strongly influenced by the demonizing of Putin -- a personal vilification far exceeding any ever applied to Soviet Russia's latter-day Communist leaders." ..."
"In a Time of Universal Deceit -- Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act" is a well
known quotation (but probably not of George Orwell). And in telling the truth about Russia
and that the current "war of nerves" is not in the interests of either the American People or
national security, Professor Cohen in this book has in fact done a revolutionary act.
Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea
what the truth is. And the questions raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the
cause of the truth. As Professor Cohen writes in his introduction To His Readers:
"My scholarly work -- my biography of Nikolai Bukharin and essays collected in Rethinking
the Soviet Experience and Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, for example -- has always been
controversial because it has been what scholars term "revisionist" -- reconsiderations, based
on new research and perspectives, of prevailing interpretations of Soviet and post-Soviet
Russian history. But the "controversy" surrounding me since 2014, mostly in reaction to the
contents of this book, has been different -- inspired by usually vacuous, defamatory assaults
on me as "Putin's No. 1 American Apologist," "Best Friend," and the like. I never respond
specifically to these slurs because they offer no truly substantive criticism of my
arguments, only ad hominem attacks. Instead, I argue, as readers will see in the first
section, that I am a patriot of American national security, that the orthodox policies my
assailants promote are gravely endangering our security, and that therefore we -- I and
others they assail -- are patriotic heretics. Here too readers can judge."
Cohen, Stephen F.. War with Russia (Kindle Locations 131-139). Hot Books. Kindle
Edition.
Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists"
elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with
Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is
of no benefit to any person or nation.
Indeed, with the hysteria on "climate change" isn't it odd that other than Professor
Cohen's voice, there are no prominent figures warning of the devastation that nuclear war
would bring?
If you are a viewer of one of the legacy media outlets, be it Cable Television networks,
with the exception of Tucker Carlson on Fox who has Professor Cohen as a frequent guest, or
newspapers such as The New York Times, you have been exposed to falsehoods by remarkably
ignorant individuals; ignorant of history, of the true nature of Russia (which defeated the
Nazis in Europe at a loss of millions of lives) and most important, of actual military
experience. America is neither an invincible or exceptional nation. And for those familiar
with terminology of ancient history, it appears the so-called elites are suffering from
hubris.
I cannot recommend Professor Cohen's work with sufficient superlatives; his arguments are
erudite, clearly stated, supported by the facts and ultimately irrefutable. If enough people
find Professor Cohen's work and raise their voices to their oblivious politicians and
profiteers from war to stop further confrontation between Russia and America, then this book
has served a noble purpose.
If nothing else, educate yourself by reading this work to discover what the *truth* is.
And the truth is something sacred.
America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace
makers..."
I have followed Stephen Cohen for a while and read all his books. This is undoubtedly my
favorite, it has a good balance between history and current events. If you are interested in
current events and want to get informed about Russia, which seems to be on the mind of
everyone right now, buy this book. Read more
Stephen Cohen is a well respected scholar who has studied Russia and the Soviet Union for
over 50 years. He provides facts often neglected in today's agenda driven media.
An interesting quote found in the book from a surprising source, Henry Kissinger: "The
demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for not having one." And then
notes Cohen, "But Kissinger was also wrong. Washington has made many policies strongly
influenced by the demonizing of Putin -- a personal vilification far exceeding any ever
applied to Soviet Russia's latter-day Communist leaders."
Cohen's calm reasoned analysis regarding Russia is sadly all too uncommon. It is difficult to
overstate the importance of his work
On the planet I live on, detente was a tactical strategy adopted by Nixon and Kissinger in
a moment of weakness after the US defeat in the Vietnam War. With two equally powerful
superpowers on the globe capable of mutually-assured destruction, detente was based on the
idea that the USSR wasn't inherently evil and worthy of active opposition. Detente was
abandoned by Carter after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
On Mr. Cohen's planet, detente is as appropriate a strategy today as it was in the 1970s.
Only the situation is now vastly different: The former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern
Europe have switched sides and joined NATO Half of the former USSR is now independent from
Russia. Cohen believes that detente remains the appropriate strategy for the last 50 years no
matter what Russian has done. Abandoning detente in the wake of Afghanistan and Crimea is the
wrong strategy, even though the former led to the US's greatest foreign policy success since
WWII.
On Mr. Cohen's planet, an aggressive trade pact offered by the EU prompted Mr.
Yanukovich's downfall. On my planet, Mr. Yanukovich backed out of a highly popular trade deal
negotiated over five years with two Ukrainian administrations. He backed out three days
before signing. Since much of the public believed the deal offered a route to greater
economic prosperity and less corruption, peaceful occupation of the Euromaidan began
immediately. The situation was initially very similar to the peaceful Orange Revolution of
2004-5, that began after Yanukovich was declared a winner (by 3%) despite exit polling
showing him losing by 11%. Only in 2013-2014, the government's efforts to remove the
demonstrators turned violent. Mr Putin claims the demonstrators (500,000 on Dec 8) were
merely hirelings of the CIA and Mr. Cohen doesn't challenge this claim. As the violence grew
worse, the US and EU negotiated a settlement between Mr. Yanukovich and his political
opponents, but by then it was too late. When publicly informed of the agreement by opposition
leaders, the demonstrators (a coalition of many groups who had seen 50 killed the previous
day) unanimously rejected the settlement and warned Yanukovich they would be coming for him
tomorrow. The police had melted away, many officials had resigned and no one left was willing
to protect Yanukovich. He fled to Russia that night. The next day Parliament voted 338-0 to
declare the Presidency vacant (17 votes short of the constitutional 3/4), appointed an
interim government and scheduled elections. Ignoring Yanukowich's complete lack of internal
support and his flight, Cohen calls this a "coup" (p17). The same night Yanukovich fled,
Putin launched the operation to seize Crimea and annexed it less than 1 month later. The US
has recently undertaken questionable military operations in a number of countries beginning
with Kosovo, but never without first taking the time to attempt to negotiate a peaceful
settlement.
In my world, Ukraine, Russia, the US and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum pledging to
respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in return for decommission Ukraine's nuclear
forces. This agreement isn't found in the index of Cohen's book.
On my planet, the evidence linking Putin to the assassination of Litvinecko, Nemtsov, and
Politkovskaya and the attempt on the Skripals is strong and consistent with spending his
formative years in the KGB. The naive view from Cohen's planet is presented on p 6 and
170.
The worst sins in this book arise from its structure. The first 10 pages of the book
comprise an overview, and the remaining 200 pages are paste ups of talks, articles and blog
posts since 2014, and mostly since 2016. In most cases, these articles consist of Cohen
defending Putin's position in response to breaking news. For example, we get Cohen's initial
12/15/16 response to reports that Russia hacked the DNC on p74-75, but we aren't told about
the large amount of information collected since then, including reports that the Dutch had
hacked into the Russian operation that hacked the DNC. Mueller has indicted several dozens
Russians in connection with the break in. Cohen is supposed to be an important scholar and
historian. He knows that biased first impressions from breaking news do not constitute
history.
This "scholarly work" was published to some organization called Hot Books, whose website
was non-functional at the time of this review. The book covers contain only one ambiguous
comment from a reviewer I don't recognize. The remaining comments are refer to Cohen's
previous books. Praise from that Russia scholar Tucker Carlson is mentioned at Amazon.
Cohen's previous books were publisher by major publishers. Apparently they agree with me that
Cohen is the one living on a different planet.
I bought this book hoping to hear a different perspective on our deteriorating
relationship with Russia. I had doubts about the expansion of NATO into countries with large
numbers of ethnic Russians - countries that need to reach compromises with their powerful
neighbor. The Ukraine is a classic example. It has maintained a marginally separate national
identity and language, but the east is predominantly Russian. Western Ukraine contains the
Polish territory Hitler gave to Stalin and is anti-Russian. The Ukrainians twice drove the
Red Army from Kiev during the civil war that followed the overthrow of the tsar. Millions of
Ukrainians saw Hitler as a potential liberator of the Ukrainian people and Nazism is a
powerful force in some areas. I was hoping to hear some nuanced and realistic information
about these issues, not an apologist for Putin.
This is the same domino theory that led to Vietnam war.
Notable quotes:
"... The same company and Ukrainians that refused the FBI access and from whom the FBI has failed to obtain a warrant for that system to investigate threats to the nation's national security -- excuse me but that strangely like "obstruction of justice" yet according to some commenters here -- the FBI is just too incompetent to conduct such a technically difficult task. ..."
"... And for more than three years the democrats have been leading the country down a road of impeachment for imagined --- nonexistent crimes based on nonexistent evidence. ..."
"... Only thing more astonishing than the democratic investigations is that half of the population actually thinks there's merit. But when Vice President Biden brazenly boasts about coercing the the Ukrainian government to stop a criminal investigation and that boast is on tale for all to hear --- it's not a fact -- it's a made up conspiracy theory ..."
"... That sounds like the kind of delusional remark one might here from somebody with a severe mental illness. Frightening to think that the person who said it is a mover and shaker in the foreign policy world. ..."
"... I agree with the other posters that this impeachment is a textbook play by play narrative of entrenched interests lobbying to maintain the status quo as well as foreign lobbyists pursuing their own interest I personally find the comment of fighting Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia here a sign of imbecility if they weren't speaking seriously. ..."
| One-time U.S. presidential advisor on Russia and Europe to the White House National Security Council Timothy Morrison testified
in his opening
statement
to the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon that "the United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight Russia
over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here."
This is another example of what I have been saying about this, that while the impeachment stuff is boring the geopolitical takes
from these neocons in the government are telling. They show exactly why nothing changes on foreign policy no matter who gets elected
President. They have an agenda, such as the anti-Russian agenda, and they see their job to pursue this no matter what happens.
This is what the opposition to Trump from the establishment is largely about, that he is going against their foreign policy interests,
such as the current US-Russia proxy war.
They want to spread globalism/liberalism to the entire world, including Russia. Russia does not accept this and is defending
itself. The current crisis was caused entirely by the US, everything Russia has done has been in a defensive and very restrained
response.
The impeachment is about . . . Uuuhhh, hmmmm . . let's see how to take on Russia.
I suspect that the shift here is the direct result of all the evidence concerning how the US was involved in a violent revolution
that has brought Ukraine or "the Ukraine" to the brink if not actual civil war.
That in the wake of that violence Sec Clinton's bid for the WH failed and that in turn has upended the push for a forceful
confrontation with Russia in which a women would be seen as tough and capable --- utterly missing the point of how and why we
select our government leaders.
Notwithstanding this same leader gas a history of failed foreign policy prescriptions:
Now certainly she was not alone in these endeavors. But I find it interesting that the democrats are besides themselves over
her loss given the record. Nevermind how all of that now suggests that she underminded the president she served whose policies
were to tamp down against aggressive foreign policy that created needless tensions. Her tenure was anything but realistic and
tempered.
Her domestic policy was comprised of two agendas: healthcare, supporting WS, using the Clinton Foundation as a pay to play
gatekeeping operation to influence and power , protecting her uranium Russia deal, and calling her fellow citizens names as well
as importing as many foreigners to fill the coffers of big tech companies and democratic party numbers . . .
That name calling included accusations that the president was acting in accord with the Russians to overthrow US elections
and at the enter of these allegations is a company responsible for securing the Sec's computer system who just happens to be owned
by ----
a Ukrainian.
The same company and Ukrainians that refused the FBI access and from whom the FBI has failed to obtain a warrant for that system
to investigate threats to the nation's national security -- excuse me but that strangely like "obstruction of justice" yet according
to some commenters here -- the FBI is just too incompetent to conduct such a technically difficult task.
And for more than three years the democrats have been leading the country down a road of impeachment for imagined --- nonexistent
crimes based on nonexistent evidence.
Only thing more astonishing than the democratic investigations is that half of the population actually thinks there's merit.
But when Vice President Biden brazenly boasts about coercing the the Ukrainian government to stop a criminal investigation and
that boast is on tale for all to hear --- it's not a fact -- it's a made up conspiracy theory
If the policy geniuses that created these messes for the Ukraine and the US had an ounce of courage they simply would have
on their own accord sent US troops into the Ukraine en mass and that would include the Crimea. Given their depth of power, it
seems that they could have done rather easily. Good grief why bother with a messy revolution and all the trappings of multiple
interest groups -- just do it ourselves.
""the United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here.""
That sounds like the kind of delusional remark one might here from somebody with a severe mental illness. Frightening to
think that the person who said it is a mover and shaker in the foreign policy world.
I agree with the other posters that this impeachment is a textbook play by play narrative of entrenched interests lobbying
to maintain the status quo as well as foreign lobbyists pursuing their own interest I personally find the comment of fighting
Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia here a sign of imbecility if they weren't speaking seriously.
1) There is more evidence of Chinese PLA buying off politicians in the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Europe, Australia, etc
2) There is more evidence of leftists whether they be Chinese communists, Israeli leftists, George Soros globalists on college
campus's than students sympathetic to Russia. China's PLA have Chinese students and Chinese Émigré communities under surveillance
for any anti-Chinese sentiment. Infact, newspapers in Chinese Émigré communities are owned by the PLA.
2a) Our college campus's have become crucibles for civil war. US college campus are rife with anti-American protests, anti-while
protests, anti-male protests, anti-Christian protests, anti-citizenship protests,....etc. Furthermore our college campus's have
become centers denying freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, etc (even though these
students stand for every pillar and foundation of our nation...no students are ever expelled even when they commit threats, harassment,
violence and property damage).
3) China takes US retirement funds (civil service and military), offers higher yields and uses the money to buy research and new
leading technology companies. moves the businesses to China where the technology can be shared between the civilian sector and
the military sector.
4) The Chinese have infiltrated our nuclear labs, our defense weapons labs, our R&D labs
5) At the same time this is going on China is militarizing the South China Sea, China is using North Korea to test fire missiles
over South Korea and Japan, as well as threaten Guam and Hawaii.
NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND IF RUSSIA WAS AMONG A GROUP OF NATIONS INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS AND OUR DOMESTIC AND OUR FOREIGN POLICY
BUT IT STRIKES ME AS BOTH SUSPICIOUS AND SINISTER THAT ALL THE FOCUS IS ON RUSSIA WHILE OTHER NATIONS WITH MUCH STRONGER CASES
OF INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS, DOMESTIC ESPIONAGE AND SUBVERSION ARE IGNORED. ACCORDING TO VOLTAIRE'S LOGIC THEY WOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM SCRUTINY AND VISIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE STRONGER AND INFLUENCING US THE MOST WHILE RUSSIA WOULD BE TARGETED BECAUSE
THEY ARE INFLUENCING US THE LEAST.
"... their ground on which to impeach Trump -- and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being America's President -- Trump's having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President Trump. ..."
"... Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me. ..."
"... These matters are likelier to be publicly discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too 'sensitive' to be brought up even there -- especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February 2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine's democratically elected Government, and -- if that happened, as we will show it did -- how this fact might affect Trump's relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the 'news'-media have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public. ..."
"... Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types. ..."
"... Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions. Yovanovitch was part of Obama's team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush's team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been. ..."
"... A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet, even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing for it was "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable." ..."
"... Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and lies in this key passage from her]: ..."
...the American public should have been far more skeptical about the Ukrainegate
narrative than they were, because, at first, Democrats were trying to use, as their ground on
which to impeach Trump -- and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being
America's President -- Trump's having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election
against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly
questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic
National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President
Trump. Now the Democrats' ground, for replacing President Donald Trump by his Vice President
Mike Pence, is that in Trump's 25 July 2019 phone-call to Ukraine's new President Volodmyr
Zelensky, Trump supposedly pressured Zelensky to have Joe Biden investigated.
One of the first signs of a liar is that the person switches his story -- changes to a new
and different reason for 'justifying' his actions (in this case, impeachment) -- and this
clearly is being done now by the Democrats and the 'news'-media, in order to replace President
Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence. Consequently: Americans are insufficiently
suspicious against the present impeachment hearings. Americans need to examine carefully beyond
the mere surface -- much deeper. The links here are provided in order to facilitate the
reader's direct access to the highest quality (i.e., most trustworthy) evidence in the case, so
that the reader may see, on one's own , what the 'news'-media do not report.
25 September 2019 was when
a clear and copyable version of the transcript of that complete July 25th phone
conversation finally became published, online, by Rhode Island's Providence Journal; and
here is the only passage in the complete transcript where Trump mentioned Biden (three times,
in fact -- the only three times that the word "Biden" appears in the entire transcript):
Rudy [Giuliani] very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you
could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador [to Ukraine] from the United
States, the woman [Marie Yovanovitch] , was bad news and the people she was dealing with in
the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot
of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to
find out about that so whatever you can do with the [U.S.] Attorney General [William Barr]
would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can
look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
What "prosecution," of whom, for what, and why? The media ignore those questions. when they
aren't simply assuming an answer to them. But no such answer ought to be assumed. Nor should
these important questions be ignored. Here, the answers to those questions will be
documented.
Furthermore, elsewhere in that conversation, Trump said:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and
Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole
situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people.
The server, they say Ukraine has it.
Zelensky responded by asserting that "the next prosecutor general [in Ukraine] will be 100%
my person" and that "he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company
[Crowdstrike] that you mentioned in this issue." Nothing at all was said by Zelensky about any
Biden, at any point in the entire phone-call. It wasn't mainly about the Bidens such as the
press alleges to be the case.
In fact: the "favor" that Trump was asking about wasn't concerning the Bidens, but it
instead concerned the investigation that Trump's Attorney General (referenced here when Trump
said "whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great") is now heading, into the
question of why Obama's FBI and entire intelligence community had proceeded with the highly
suspect Christopher Steele and Crowdstrike report that the Democratic National Committee had
hired under Obama in order to come up with allegations to use against Trump, and why the Obama
Administration never demanded to inspect the DNC's own server in order to examine the key
physical evidence in the alleged Russiagate case against Trump -- much less, what testimony and
evidence Julian Assange might have in the alleged Russiagate case . What did Trump mean when he
said "The server, they say Ukraine has it"? Did Trump actually think that Zelensky could supply
that physical evidence? What did he mean? What was he asking of Zelensky when Trump said, "The
server, they say Ukraine has it"?
One can't understand the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump unless one understands
accurately what was happening in Ukraine and what the motivations were of the persons who were
involved in U.S.-Ukraine policy, first under U.S. President Barack Obama, and then under his
successor Donald Trump. Information will be presented here, about those matters, which probably
won't come up in the House impeachment hearings. These matters are likelier to be publicly
discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too 'sensitive' to be
brought up even there -- especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look
bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February
2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine's democratically elected Government, and -- if
that happened, as we will show it did -- how this fact might affect Trump's relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the 'news'-media
have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public.
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had
negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran's democratically elected Government wasn't
revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a
'democratic revolution' in Iran . Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long
time, and not only about 'WMD in Iraq'. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup in
Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in the
case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying , at deceiving , at manipulating , its public, no less now than it was then . Without
understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of
honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but
of different types.
PART TWO: TRUMP'S PURPOSE IN THE 25 JULY
2019 CALL TO ZELENSKY
The argument to be presented here is that Trump, in this phone-call, and generally, was
trying not only to obtain help with evidence-gathering in the "Crowdstrike" matter (which A.G.
Barr is now investigating, and which also is the reason why Trump specifically mentioned
"Crowdstrike" at the only instance in the phone-call where he was requesting a "favor" from
Zelensky), but to change the policy toward Ukraine that had been established by Obama (via
Obama's coup and its aftermath). This is a fact, which will be documented here. Far more than
politics was involved here; ideology was actually very much involved. Trump was considering a
basic change in U.S. foreign policies. He was considering to replace policies that had been
established under, and personnel who had been appointed by, his immediate predecessor, Barack
Obama. Democrats are extremely opposed to any such changes. This is one of the reasons for the
renewed impeachment-effort by Democrats. They don't want to let go of Obama's worst policies.
But changing U.S. foreign policy is within a President's Constitutional authority to do.
Trump fired the flaming neoconservative John Bolton on 10 September 2019. This culminated a
growing rejection by Trump of neoconservatism -- something that he had never thought much about
but had largely continued from the Obama Administration, which invaded and destroyed Libya in
2011, Syria in 2012-, Yemen in 2015-, and more -- possibly out-doing even George W. Bush, who
likewise was a flaming neocon. Trump's gradual turn away from neoconservatism wasn't just
political; it was instead a reflection, on his part, that maybe, just maybe, he had actually
been wrong and needed to change his foreign policies, in some important ways. (He evidently
still hasn't yet figured out precisely what those changes should be.)
For example, on 15 November 2019, the impeachment focus was on the testimony of Marie
Yovanovitch, whom Trump had recently (
in May 2019 ) fired as the Ambassador to Ukraine. Democrats presented her as having been
the paradigm of professionalism and nonpartisanship in America's foreign service. She was
actually a neoconservative who had been appointed as an Ambassador first by President George W.
Bush on 20 November 2004, after her having received an M.S. from the National War College in
2001. Obama appointed her, on 18 May 2016, to replace Geoff Pyatt ( shown and heard in this video confidentially
receiving instructions from Obama's agent controlling Ukraine-policy, Victoria Nuland ) as
the Ambassador to Ukraine. Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like
Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions.
Yovanovitch was part of Obama's team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush's
team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and
just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been.
A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet,
even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing
for it was "The United States is and remains
the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable." This
imperialistic belief was an extension of Yale's 'pacifist' pro-Nazi America
First movement , which was supported by Wall Street's Dulles brothers in the
early 1940s , and which pro-Nazi movement Trump himself has prominently praised. Unlike the
progressive U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had planned the U.N. in order to be
the anti -imperialist emerging first-ever global world government of nations, which would
democratically set and ultimately enforce international laws of a new global federation of
nations -- a global democratic federation of sovereign republics -- neoconservatives are U.S.
imperialists, who want instead to destroy the U.N., and to extend American power over the
entire world, make America not only the policeman to the world but the lawmaker for the world,
and the judge jury and executioner of the world, the global dictator. The U.N. would be
weakened to insignificance. This has gradually been occurring. It continued even after what had
been thought to have been the 1991 end of the Cold War, and after Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize
in 2009 for his deceptive rhetoric. Yale's John
Bolton was the leading current proponent of the America First viewpoint, much more straightforward in his advocacy of
it than the far wilier Obama was; and, until recently, Trump supported that unhedged
advocacy for the neoconservative viewpoint: U.S. imperialism. Regarding the campaign to take
over Russia, however, he no longer does -- he has broken with Bolton on that central
neoconservative goal, and he is trying to reverse that policy, which had been even more extreme
than Obama's policy towards Russia was (which policy had, in fact , produced the coup in Ukraine).
When the Cold War had supposedly ended in 1991, it ended actually only on the Russian side, but secretly it continued and continues on
as policy on the American imperialists' side . The neoconservative side, which controlled
the U.S. Government by that time (FDR's vision having been destroyed when Ronald Reagan entered
the White House in 1981), has no respect whatsoever for Russia's sovereignty over its own land,
and certainly not over the land of Russia's neighbors, such as Ukraine, which has a 1,625-mile
border with Russia. Neoconservatives want U.S. missiles to be pointed at Moscow all along
Russia's border. That would be as if Russia had wanted to position Russian missiles all along
Canada's and Mexico's borders with the U.S.; it would disgust any decent person, anywhere, but
neoconservatives aren't decent people. Neoconservatives (U.S. imperialists) seek for all of
Russia's neighbors to become part of the U.S. empire, so as to isolate Russia and then become
able to gobble it up. All neoconservatives want this ultimately to happen. Their grasp for
power is truly limitless. Only in the tactical issues do they differ from one-another.
In her testimony behind closed doors to Senators, on
11 October 2019 , Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward
Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative
outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and
lies in this key passage from her]:
Because of Ukraine's geostrategic position bordering Russia on its east, the warm waters
of the oil-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO allies to its west, it is critical to
the security of the United States [this is like saying that Mexico and Canada are crucial to
the security of Russia -- it's a lie] that Ukraine remain free and democratic [meaning, to
neoconservatives, under U.S. control] , and that it continue to resist Russian expansionism
[like Russia cares about U.S. expansionism over all of the Western Hemisphere? Really? Is
that actually what this is about? It's about extending U.S. imperialism on and across
Russia's border into Russia itself] Russia's purported annexation of Crimea [but, actually,
"Clear and
convincing evidence will be presented here that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S.
Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia's
main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval
base." ] , its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and its defacto control over the Sea of Azov,
make clear Russia's malign intentions towards Ukraine [not make clear Russia's determination
not to be surrounded by enemies -- by U.S.-stooge regimes. For Russia to avoid that is
'malign', she says] . If we allow Russia's actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the
United States will regret for decades to come. So, supporting Ukraine's integration into
Europe and combating Russia' s efforts to destabilize Ukraine [Oh, America didn't do that destabilization ?]
have anchored our policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and
demanded to be a part of Europe and live according to the rule of law [But Ukrainians before
Obama's takeover of Ukraine in February 2014 didn't actually want to be part of the EU nor of
NATO, and they considered NATO to be a threat to Ukraine. "In 2010,
Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean 'protection of your
country,' 40% said it's 'a threat to your country'." ] That was U.S. policy when I became
ambassador in August 2016 [after Obama's successful coup there took over its
media and turned Ukrainian opinion strongly against Russia] , and it was reaffirmed as that
policy as the policy of the current administration in early 2017. [Yes, that's correct,
finally a truthful assertion from her. When Trump first came into office, he was a
neoconservative, too.] The Revolution of Dignity [ you'll see here the 'dignity' of it ]
and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to
take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country's political
and economic systems [and that still do, and perhaps more now than even before] .
That's just one example -- it's about the role of Ambassador Yovanovitch. But the focus of
Ukrainegate isn't really that. It's not Yovanovitch. It is what Trump was trying to do, and
what Joe Biden was trying to do, and what Obama had actually done. It is also about Joe Biden's
son Hunter, because this is also about contending dynasties, and not only about contending
individuals. Trump isn't certain, now, that he wants to continue being a full-fledged
neoconservative, and to continue extending Obama's neoconservative policies regarding Ukraine.
So: this is largely about what those policies actually were. And here is how Joe Biden comes
into the picture, because Democrats, in trying to replace President Donald Trump by a President
Mike Pence, are trying to restore, actually, Barack Obama's policy in Ukraine, a policy of
which the Bidens themselves were very much Obama's agents, and Mike Pence would be expected to
continue and extend those policies. Here will be necessary to document some personal and
business relationships that the U.S. news-media have consistently been hiding and even lying
about, and which might not come up even in the expected subsequent Senate hearings about
whether to replace Trump by Pence:
PART THREE: THE CENTRALITY OF UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH IHOR
KOLOMOYSKY
The real person who was the benefactor to, and the boss of, Vice President Joe Biden's son,
Hunter Biden, at the Ukrainian gas-exploration company Burisma Holdings, was not the person
that the American press says was, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had been part of the Ukrainian
Government until Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014, but it
was instead Ihor Kolomoysky, who was part of the newly installed Ukrainian Government, which
the Obama Administration itself had actually just installed in Ukraine (and that
phone-conversation appointing Ukraine's new leader is explained here ), in what the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor has
correctly called "the most blatant coup in
history." ( Here's more
explanation of that coup which was done by Obama. )
One cannot even begin accurately to understand the impeachment proceedings against America's
current President Donald Trump ("Ukrainegate"), unless one first knows and understands
accurately what the relationships were between Trump and the current Government of Ukraine, and
the role that the Obama Administration had played in forming that Government (installing it),
and the role that Hunter Biden had been hired to perform for his actual boss at Burisma,
Kolomoysky, soon after Obama (via Obama's agent Victoria Nuland) had installed Ukraine's new
Government.
As I had written on
28 September 2019 , "In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky
doesn't want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden's
boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor
until Zelensky became Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms
which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places
."
That article, at the phrase "
dug up in 2012," discussed and linked to a careful 2012 study of Burisma which had actually
been done in Ukraine by an investigative nonprofit (Antac)
funded by America's billionaire George Soros (who was another major funder of the 2014 Ukrainian coup , as well as of Barack
Obama's political career itself) in order to help to bring down Yanukovych. However, what this
study found was not the incriminating evidence against Zlochevsky which had been hoped.
It
found instead that the person who owned the controlling interest in Burisma was not really the Yanukovych-supporter Mykola Zlochevsky; it was, in fact, the Ukrainian billionaire Ihor
Kolomoysky, who supported Yanukovych's overthrow. Kolomoysky, shortly after the coup, became
appointed as the governor in a region of Ukraine, by the Obama Administration's post-coup
Ukrainian Government. Obama's financial backer Soros knew, or should have known, that
Zlochevsky had sold almost all of his Burisma holdings to Kolomoysky in 2011, but Obama's
Administration was nonetheless trying to get the newly installed Ukrainian Government to
prosecute Zlochevsky because Zlochevsky was associated with the Ukrainian President whom Obama
had just overthrown. Hunter Biden's function was to help to protect Mr. Kolomoysky against
being targeted by the newly installed Government in the anti-corruption campaign that the Obama
Administration and the EU were pressing upon that new Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden was to
serve as a U.S. fixer for his new boss Kolomoysky, to deflect the anti-corruption campaign away
from Kolomoysky as a target and toward Zlochevsky as a target. And Hunter's father, Joe Biden,
followed through on that, by demanding that Ukraine prosecute Zlochevsky, not Kolomoysky.
Soros isn't really against corruption; he is against corruption by countries that he wants to
take over, and that he uses the U.S. Government in order to take over. Neoconservatism is
simply imperialism, which has always been the foreign-affairs ideology of aristocrats and of
billionaires. (In America's case, that includes both Democratic and Republican billionaires.)
So, it's just imperialism in America. All billionaires who care at all about international
relations are imperialists; and, in America, that's called "neoconservative." The American
issue regarding Ukraine was never actually Ukraine's corruption. Corruption is standard and
accepted throughout the U.S.-and-allied countries; but against countries they want to take over
it becomes a PR point in order to win acceptance by the gulls, of their own country's
imperialism and its own associated corruption. "Our country's corruption is acceptable, but
yours is not," is the view. That's the standard imperialist view. Neoconservatism --
imperialism anywhere, actually -- is always based on lies. Imperialism, in fact, is part of
nationalism, but it is excluded by patriotism; and no nationalist is a patriot. No patriot is a
nationalist. Whereas a nationalist supports his country's billionaires, a patriot supports his
country's residents -- all of them, his countrymen, on a democratic basis, everyone having
equal rights, not the richest of the residents having the majority or all of the rights. A
nationalist is one-dollar-one-vote; a patriot is one resident one vote. The only people who are
intelligently nationalist are billionaires and the agents they employ. All other nationalists
are their gulls. Everyone else is a patriot. Ordinarily, there are far more gulls than
patriots.
Information hasn't yet been published regarding what Trump's agent Rudolph Giuliani has
found regarding Burisma, but the links in the present article link through to the evidence that
I am aware of, and it's evidence which contradicts what the U.S.-and-allied press have been
reporting about the Bidens' involvement in Ukraine. So: this information might be what Trump's
team intend to reveal after the Democratic-Party-controlled House of Representatives indicts
Trump (send to the Republican Senate a recommendation to replace him by Mike Pence as America's
President), if they will do that; but, regardless, this is what I have found, which
U.S.-and-allied news-media have conspicuously been not only ignoring but blatantly
contradicting -- contradicting the facts that are being documented by the evidence that is
presented here . Consequently, the links in this article prove the systematic lying by
America's press, regarding Ukrainegate.
After the Soros-funded Antac had discovered in 2012 that Kolomoysky ruled Burisma, the great
independent Australian investigative journalist who has lived for 30 years in and reported from
Moscow, John Helmer , headlined on 19
February 2015 one of his blockbuster news-reports,
"THE HUNT FOR BURISMA, PART II -- WHAT ROLE FOR IGOR KOLOMOISKY, WHAT LONDON MISSED, WHAT
WASHINGTON DOESN'T WANT TO SEE" , and he linked there not only to Ukrainian Government
records but also to UK Government records, and also to corporate records in Cyprus, Panama, and
elsewhere, to document that, indeed, Kolomoysky controlled Burisma. So, all of the
U.S.-and-allied 'news'-reporting, which merely assumes that Zlochevsky controlled this firm
when Hunter Biden became appointed to its board, are clearly false. (See
this, for example, from Britain's Guardian , two years later, on 12 April 2017, simply
ignoring both the Antac report and the even-more-detailed Helmer report, and presenting
Zlochevsky -- Kolomoysky's decoy -- as the appropriate target to be investigated for Burisma's
alleged corruption.) So: when Joe Biden demanded that Ukraine's Government prosecute
Zlochevsky, Biden was not, as he claims he was, demanding a foreign Government to act against
corruption; he was instead demanding that foreign Government (Ukraine) to carry out his own
boss, Barack Obama's, agenda, to smear as much as he could Viktor Yanukovych -- the Ukrainian
President whom Obama had overthrown. This isn't to say that Yanukovych was not corrupt; every
post-Soviet Ukrainian President, and probably Prime Minister too, has been corrupt. Ukraine is
famous for being corrupt. But, this doesn't necessarily mean that Zlochevsky was corrupt.
However, Kolomoysky is regarded, in Ukraine, as being perhaps the most corrupt of all
Ukrainians.
Perhaps Kolomoysky's major competitor has been Victor Pinchuk, who has long been famous in
Washington for donating heavily to Bill and Hillary Clintons' causes. For example, on 11 March
2018, the independent investigative journalist Jeff Carlson, bannered "Victor
Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections" and he reported that
He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro
Bank, some ferroalloy plants and a media empire.
He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma.
Pinchuk's been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the
September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is
widely believed to have ordered the murder. A series of recordings would seem to back
up this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov had
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies),
Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain
Institute).
Doug Schoen filed FARA documents
showing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5) – in part to
arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It
is unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street Journal
reported
how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to
pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a
political rival of Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
A large network of collaborators, all connected to NATO's PR agency the Atlantic Council,
were also discussed and linked to; and, in one of the video clips, Victoria Nuland headed a
panel discussion in Munich Germany at which numerous leading Democratic Party neoconservatives,
and neoconservative foreign leaders, discussed how wonderful the "Deep State" is, and praised
the Republican neocon John McCain, who had helped Victoria Nuland to install the fascist
Government of Ukraine.
Joe Biden's campaign for president, as well as his defence against charges of corrupt
influence peddling and political collusion in the Ukraine, are being promoted in Washington
by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk through the New York lobbyist, candidate adviser and
pollster, Douglas Schoen (left).
This follows several years of attempts by Pinchuk and Schoen to buy influence with Donald
Trump, first as a candidate and then as president; with Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and
with John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser in 2018 and 2019. Their attempts
failed.
Pinchuk has been paying Schoen more than $40,000 every month for eight years. The amount
of money is substantially greater than Biden's son Hunter Biden was paid by Pinchuk's
Ukrainian rival Igor Kolomoisky through the oil company Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Bohai,
Biden's New York front company.
Pinchuk's message for the Democratic candidates and US media, according to Schoen's Fox
News [4] broadcast in August, is: "Stop killing your own, stop beating up on your own
frontrunner, Joe Biden."
On November 12th, the New York Times headlined "Ukraine's President Seeks Face-to-Face Meeting With Putin" and
reported that Zelensky is now sufficiently disturbed at the declining level of the EU's and
Trump Administration's continuing support for Ukraine's Government, so that Zelensky is
desperately trying to restore friendly relations with Russia. The next day, that newspaper
bannered "A Ukrainian Billionaire Fought
Russia. Now He's Ready to Embrace It." This report said: "Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as
Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently
elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time,
he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and
turn back toward Russia ." Kolomoysky, in other words, who had been on Obama's team in
Ukraine, no longer is on the U.S. team under Trump. A reasonable inference would be that
Kolomoysky increasingly fears the possibility of being prosecuted. Continuation of the Obama
plan for Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely.
Here are some crimes for which Kolomoysky might be prosecuted:
Allegedly, Kolomoysky, on 20 March 2015,
brought to a board meeting of Ukraine's gas-distribution company UkrTransNafta, of which
Kolomoysky was a minority shareholder, his hired thugs armed with guns , in an
unsuccessful attempt to intimidate the rest of the board to impose Kolomoysky's choice to
lead the company. Ukraine's President, Petro Poroshenko, soon thereafter, yielded to the
pressure from Ukraine's bondholders to fire
Kolomoysky as a regional governor, and then nationalized Ukraine's biggest bank,
PrivatBank, which had looted billions of dollars from depositors' accounts and secreted the
proceeds in untraceable offshore accounts, so that the bank had to be bailed out by Ukraine's
taxpayers. (Otherwise, there would have been huge riots against Poroshenko.)
Zelensky is squeezed between his funder and his public, and so dithers. For example, on 10
September 2019, the Financial Times reported
that "The IMF has warned Ukraine that backsliding on Privatbank's nationalisation would
jeopardise its $3.9bn standby programme and that officials expect Ukraine to push for recovery
of the $5.5bn spent on rescuing the bank." Stealing $5.5B is a big crime, and this was Obama's
Ukrainian Government. Will it also be Trump's?
There are others, but those could be starters.
So, both Kolomoysky and Zelensky are evidently now considering to seek Moscow's protection,
though Kolomoysky had previously been a huge backer of, and helped to fund, killing of the
Donbassers who rejected the Obama-imposed Russia-hating Ukrainian regime.
Any such prosecutions could open up, to international scrutiny, Obama's entire Ukrainian
operation. That, in turn, would expose Obama's command-complicity in the ethnic cleansing operation , which Kolomoysky's co-planner
of the 2 May 2014 massacre inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Arsen Avakov,
euphemistically labelled the "Anti Terrorist Operation" or "ATO," to eliminate as many as possible of the residents in the former
Donbass region of Ukraine, where over 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych.
PART FOUR: TRUMP'S MANY POLICY-DILEMMAS REGARDING UKRAINE
If Putin offers no helping hand to Zelensky, what will happen to Ukraine, and to Ukrainians?
Might Trump finally campaign for the United States to become one of the "States Parties" to the
International Criminal Court , so that Obama, Nuland, Soros, and others who had overthrown
Ukraine's
democratically elected Government could be tried there? How would Trump be able to immunize
himself for such
crimes as his own 14 April 2018 unprovoked missile-attack against Syria ? How likely is it
that he would ever actually become a supporter of international law, instead of an imperialist
(such as he has always been) and therefore opponent of international law? He, after all, is
himself a billionaire, and no billionaire has ever fought for international law except in an
instance where he benefited from it -- never for international law itself . Trump isn't likely
to be the first. But here's how it could happen:
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives. There's not much distance between
his policies toward Ukraine versus Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's. However, after Trump becomes
impeached in the House (if that happens) and the impeachment trial starts in the Republican
U.S. Senate, there will then be a perfect opportunity for Trump to embarrass the Democratic
Party profoundly by exposing not only Joe Biden but Biden's boss Obama as having
caused the war in Ukraine . In order for him to do that, however, he'd also need to expose
the rot of neoconservatism. Nobody in Washington does that, except, perhaps the rebelling
Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, and she's
rejected in the national polls now by the public within her own Party . Neoconservatism is
the uniform foreign-policy ideology of America's billionaires, both Republican and Democratic,
and this is why Washington is virtually 100% neocon. In America, wealth certainly doesn't
trickle down, but ideology apparently does -- and that's not merely neoliberalism but also its
international-affairs extension: neoconservatism. Nonetheless, if a Trump re-election ticket
were Trump for President, and Gabbard for Vice President, it might be able to beat anything
that the Democrats could put up against it, because Trump would then head a ticket which would
remain attractive to Republicans and yet draw many independents and even the perhaps 5% of
Democrats who like her. Only Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee (and who is the
least-neoconservative member of the U.S. Senate), would attract some of Gabbard's supporters,
but he wouldn't be getting any money from the 607 people who mainly fund American politics. The
2020 U.S. Presidential contest could just go hog-wild. However, America's billionaires probably
won't let that happen. Though there are only 607 of therm, they have enormous powers over the
Government, far more than do all other Americans put together. The U.S. Supreme Court made it
this way, such as by the 1976 Buckley decision , and the 2010 Citizens United
decision .
So: while justice in this impeachment matter (and in the 2020 elections) is conceivable, it
is extremely unlikely. The public are too deceived -- by America's Big-Money
people.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy
in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama's anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's
Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S.
had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow that -- they want to force him to
accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine's troops in how to use them
against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal
U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make
a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times.
This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried
hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office. Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly have
abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom
Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of
the Electoral College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it
has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy
of wealth controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the
Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as
constituting our Government, today.
* * *
PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings' Ranking Minority Member, the
neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes , stands for, I close here with
his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st , in which he validly described the
Democrats' scandalously trashy Ukrainegate case against Trump (even though he refused to look
deeper to the issues I raise in this article -- he dealt here merely with how "shoddy" the case
the Democrats had presented was):
Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that
President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian president
Zelensky. The offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to
extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. It's clear why
the Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. President Trump had good
reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread
corruption in that country. President Zelensky, who didn't even know aid to Ukraine had been
paused at the time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the
conversation. The aid was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were
supposedly being coerced into doing.
Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under President
Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses have
testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different reasons.
So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there's no actual misdeed and no one even
claiming to be a victim? The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple slogan,
"he got caught." President Trump, we are to believe, was just about to do something wrong and
getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought crime the
Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.
I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on
this Committee, who are now hurling these charges for the last three years. It's not
president Trump who got caught, it's the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely
claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack
the 2016 election. They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and
lying about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations
of the Steele dossier, which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise
that impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is
to the American people.
They got caught running a sham impeachment process between secret depositions, hidden
transcripts, and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to
obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians,
and they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee
operative, who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly
redacting her name from deposition transcripts, and refusing to let Americans hear her
testimony as a witness in these proceedings. That is the Democrats pitiful legacy in recent
years. They got caught.
Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President Trump
was tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true, and the
president himself explicitly telling him the opposite, that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules,
today's hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the Impeachment Committee,
formerly known as the Intelligence Committee. Whether the Democrats reap the political
benefit they want from this impeachment remains to be seen, but the damage they have done to
this country will be long lasting. Will this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president?
They have pitted Americans against one another and poison the mind of fanatics who actually
believe the entire galaxy of bizarre accusations they have levelled against the president
since the day the American people elected him.
I sincerely hope the Democrats in this affair [end this] as quickly as possible so our
nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The people's faith in
government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken. From the
Russia hoax to this shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught. Let's hope they
finally learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest, and focus on governing for a
change. In addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), the Republican
members transmit a request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today you have blocked key
witnesses that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry. This
rule was not displaced by H.Res.660, and therefore under House Rule 11 clause 1(a), it
applies to the Democrats impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly
scheduling an agreed upon time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key
witnesses that you have continually blocked from testifying.
I'd also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that
she submitted to this Committee, in which she claimed that some Committee members deny that
Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement on Wednesday, but in
March, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year long
investigation into Russian meddling. The 240 page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling
campaign, the US government reaction to it, Russian campaigns in other countries and provided
specific recommendations to improve American election security. I would [have] asked my staff
to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so I can have a recollection of their
memory. As America may or may not know, Democrats refused to sign on to the Republican
report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views, filled with collusion conspiracy
theories. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in
election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously
by all foreign countries regardless of which campaign is the target.
The latest (2019) Reuters international survey in which over 2,000 people in each one of 38
countries were asked whether they agree that "You
can trust most news most of the time" shows that the United States scores #32 out of the
38, at the very top of the bottom 16% of all of the 38 countries surveyed, regarding trust in
the news-media. Reuters had previously found, in their
2018 edition , that, among Americans, "those who identify on the left (49%) have almost
three times as much trust in the news as those on the right (17%). The left gave their support
to newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times while the right's alienation from
mainstream media has become ever more entrenched." In the 2019 edition, what had been 49% in
America rose now to 53%, and what had been 17% sank now to 9%: the billionaires' (i.e.,
mainstream) media are trusted almost only by liberals here. What the media report is considered
trustworthy almost only by liberals, in today's America. By 53% to only 9% -- an almost 6 to 1
ratio -- the skeptics of the billionaires' press are Republicans. Of course, if the media are
distrusted, then the nation can't be functioning as a democracy. But the media will be
distrusted if they lie as much as America's do. Untrusted 'news'-media are a sure indication
that the nation is a dictatorship (such as it is if the billionaires control the media) . In
America, only liberals think that America is a democracy and therefore might possess the basic
qualification (democracy) to decide what nations need to be regime-changed (such as America did
to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Bolivia, and is still trying to do to Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Iran again, Syria, and Yemen; but not to -- for examples -- Saudi Arabia, UAE, and
Israel); and which ones don't (such as America's governmentally-annointed 'allies', including
some barbaric dictatorships). Liberals trust America's dictatorship as if it were instead a democracy.
Conservatives do not; nor, of course, do progressives. FDR's vision, of a United Nations which
would set and enforce the rules for international relations (neither the U.S. nor any other
country would do that), is now even more rejected by the Democratic Party than it is by the
Republican Party. And the politically topsy-turvy result is Democrats trying to impeach the
Republican Trump for his trying to cut back on Obama's imperialistic ( anti -FDR) agenda.
Trump, after all, didn't do the coup to Ukraine; Obama did
.
The same reason they give it to most countries - there is no oversight once the funds are transferred, then have kickbacks
funnelled into private accounts that belong to the very politicians who argue for the aid. That's one way these scumbag career
pols become multimillionaires.
The "NATO crowd" (aka neocon sh*t bags, aka 'the war party') is always still fighting the last war. NATO is totally obsolete
agents irrelevant. Wars are no longer fought with arms bombs & bullets. The NATO crowd are all fascists wearing american colors.....
they don't really care about america or her values. They only care about power; their bankrupt vision. They don't care what uniform
their SS storm troopers wear as long as they can be the chess players moving the pieces
The meaning of the events in Ukraine in 2014 is very simple. In 2014, a group of Ukrainian oligarchs of Jewish nationality
(Poroshenko-Valtsman, Kolomoisky, Rabinovich, ... + the entire Rada of 2014, consisting mainly of ethnic Jews) carried out a coup
(read - treason), violated the Constitution, overthrew the democratically elected president , made a provocation in the form of
murder (with the assistance of hired Polish, Georgian, American snipers) people on the Maidan from both sides, declared Russian-speaking
Ukrainians in the east of the country as second-class people + arranged terror with the help of Nazis from Galicia and Volhynia,
hired by Kolomoisky's money and obeying him (the Nazis obey a *** - a "funny" fact), they burned 297 people alive in Odessa (3
of them children and 1 and a pregnant woman), and then ~ 300 more people were killed on the streets (in total ~ 600 people were
killed that day in Odessa).
The beautiful Jewish boy (Zelensky), who portrays the president of Ukraine, is a protege of Kolomoisky (like Obama was the
protege of Chicago bankers), Ukraine's gold reserves in New York, gas transit from Russia is lost, relations with Russians are
completely lost, the United States got into the "Ukrainian swamp like a pigs in the mud".
Bottom line: Only Zionist Jews won in the United States and the former Ukraine, all the rest lost.
People will judge the Zionists as the German National Socialists for their crimes in the international trebunal, because
now according to the methods of doing business, American Zionism is no different from German National Socialism. If our American
and Israeli Jewish friends do not like this, what can I say? These are your problems, for crimes against humanity you will be
responsible and you will not get out of this.
"The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile
toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of
America's war to conquer Russia ."
And THIS is exactly what its all about.
Liberals supporting this insanity are now imperialist boot lickers. When war on Russia comes, every Dem voter should be immediately
sent to Ukraine to fight on the front lines.
Democrats get away with this because for 8 years MSM and the political elite white washed or were silent on Obama war crimes.
The sheep know not what they do and if they do: **** THEM
The entire history of man has been centered around the politic class skimming money off the working class. Although the current
exposition may phrase some particular politic, the virus at large is incurable.
Eric Ciamarella has close ties with Joe Biden and obviously knows all about his corruption
and collaboration with Ukraine's Nazis. He is a registered Dem.
Ciaramella travelled with Biden to Kiev and was invited by Biden to lunch at the White
House, a very unusual event for a low level CIA "analyst" indicating Ciamarella has political
connections above his CIA rank.
Ciaramella also has close links to John Brennan - the primary pusher of the Russiagate Hoax
from within the Obama Regime in 2016.
Brennan set up a CIA Task Force in late 2015 or early 2016 to target Trump and prevent him
winning the election, in what has become known as "Spygate".
Brennan conspired with the FBI, British Intelligence (MI6/MI5) and GCHQ to illegally spy on
Trump and members of his campaign.
This also involved entrapment operations and attempted smears against General Michael Flynn,
George Papadopoulos and Trump himself using long time CIA asset Stefan Halper (who was paid $1m
by Obama), MI6/MI5 asset Joseph Mifsud and long term FBI/CIA informer (since ~1999) and loose
Trump associate Felix Sater.
There was also of course MI6 agent Christopher Steele's Fake "Dossier". Nothing in the
Steele dossier is true, except for Carter Page's visit to an oil investment conference in
Moscow in mid 2016, as part of his job as an Oil Investment Consultant. This information has
always been freely available on the net and was known to the CIA and the FBI at the time.
Carter Page was regular debriefed by, and freely cooperated with, U.S. Intelligence after each
of his regular visits to Russia
The above is the REAL Foreign Meddling in the 2016 election.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever of any Russian government meddling in the 2016 US
election (see below).
The CFR is the leading Globalist organization funded by Big Banks, large Multinationals and
Oligarchs and works directly against the best interests of the 99% of ordinary Americans (and
everyone else on the planet).
Ciaramella also has close links with Dem Operative Alexandra Chalupa who went to the Ukraine
Embassy in DC in early 2016, asking for them to dig up any dirt they could find on Manafort or
Trump.
This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a
chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department.
Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017).
"Miner's daughter
tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times.
She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got
PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard
Pipes, Akira Iriye, and
Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not
languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability
to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate
witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female
careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The
list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their
native countries.
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being
questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon
Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's
emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said.
"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And
those two things had just diverged." [13] In response
to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff
, Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016]
was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud."
[
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first public protests against Zelenskiy. ..."
"... Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in light of this domestic opposition. ..."
"... Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future. ..."
"... The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the government's program of domestic reform for 2020 could change this. ..."
"... At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The return from self-imposed exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This power struggle further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised. ..."
"... A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another mass protest movement. ..."
"... Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of competitive influence seeking between Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood. ..."
"... For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47 percent trust his parliamentary faction. ..."
"... Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests, like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia. ..."
"... The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea. ..."
"... But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!) and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig. ..."
"... Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future. ..."
"... How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border? ..."
"... His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against him and the Ukraine citizens. ..."
The country's new president faces a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical, to the
events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan, write Stefan Wolff and Tatyana Malyarenko.
It's been six years since the start of the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, which led to the
ousting of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. By the time his successor Petro Poroshenko
was elected in May 2014, the domestic political scene in Ukraine and the geopolitical dynamics in the contested EU-Russia neighbourhood
surrounding it had fundamentally altered
.
Today, the country's new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who
replaced Poroshenko in April 2019, is now facing a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical,
to the events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan.
Presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine in April and July 2019 created a political situation in Ukraine with an unprecedented
concentration of political power. Zelenskiy and his Servant of the People party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's
parliament, and so complete control over
the appointment of the government . The president also
separately
appointed the prosecutor general, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of defence.
This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making
in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called
turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first
public protests against Zelenskiy.
Foreign Policy Controversy
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to
accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine
resulted in an outcry
from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively
short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became
more remote
in light of this domestic opposition.
Ukraine, Russia, and the separatists
also disagreed over who needed to fulfill which preconditions for negotiations, when and in what sequence.
Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and
ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the
agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces
have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations
could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a
recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future.
Opinion polls from September show that 23 percent of Ukrainians support military confrontation in eastern Ukraine, up from 17
percent a few months previously. As the prospects of reintegration increase under Zelenskiy's administration, so does domestic opposition
to it.
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary factions, European Solidarity and Voice,
whose supporters are predominantly located in western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary
groups composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
The initial motivation of these veterans to protest may have been what they saw as Zelenskiy's
alleged surrender by entering into direct talks with Russia. Zelenskiy has directly confronted them now by ordering them to withdraw
from the disengagement zone, but their opposition to the president's plans
continues .
Domestic Dissatisfaction
What might prove particularly dangerous for Zelenskiy is a possible convergence of so far distinct political camps that oppose
different policies of the new government. If the veterans who are at odds with Zelenskiy over his foreign policy choices were to
join forces with those who oppose him over a number of controversial domestic policies, the potential for destabilisation would significantly
increase.
The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for
positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the
government's program of domestic reform
for 2020 could change this.
Proposed budget cuts will particularly
affect public spending on healthcare, education, social security, and local governance.
New labor laws will curtail the rights of employees. A land
privatization bill, also planned for 2020, has proved
highly
unpopular as people fear a repeat of the highly corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in the 1990s when criminal groups (some
of them linked to current oligarchs) managed to capture the main Soviet industrial assets at the expense of the population at large.
In our view, these measures may, in the long term, contribute to turning Ukraine into a more stable and better functioning state.
However, their short-term consequences include decreasing social standards, higher unemployment, and a
continuation of Ukraine's brain and skills drain.
About 1m people leave Ukraine every year.
At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The
return from self-imposed
exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting
Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This
power struggle
further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and
economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised.
A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only
affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another
mass protest movement.
Geopolitical Reset?
Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of
competitive influence seeking between
Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood.
By being drawn
into the domestic politics of the U.S. and the ongoing impeachment
inquiry of Donald Trump , Zelenskiy has exposed Ukraine's vulnerability to external pressure, including from its Western partners.
Add to this Trump's personal antipathy to Ukraine (allegedly
describing it
as a "corrupt country full of terrible people") and the willingness of European leaders
to reset relations with Russia, and Ukraine's room for manoeuvre
appears even more diminished.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues
to depend heavily, including for
the implementation of much-needed domestic reforms.
For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in
one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47
percent trust his parliamentary faction.
Zelenskiy's own approval ratings also dropped from their previous high of around 80 percent by 10 percent in early September after
he secured a prisoner exchange with Russia. This indicates
that political capital may be ebbing away from the reform project with which he is identified because
popular expectations of fast and painless change cannot be met by Ukraine's new political class.
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which
drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability:
Russia.
The views expressed are solely those of the authors and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry's Comment Policy . Allegations unsupported by
facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers
will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons,
please refrain from inserting links in your comments.
The U.S.A. and the D.O.D. should not have American military trainers and advisors stationed in Ukraine nor should our government
be providing war material (some of it lethal) to the government of Ukraine. This military aid threatens the stability of the entire
region. The flagrant aggression of the U.S. A., Great Britain, and NATO into Ukraine's domestic affairs is a textbook example
of blatant balance-of-power geopolitics. As usual, this aggression is being directed and driven by such think tanks as the Atlantic
Council, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its junior American partner, the Council on Foreign relations. This
is a dangerous game that these two leading NATO countries are playing.
The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and
the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against
a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting
their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea.
Ukraine has an extremely diverse set of cultures and ethnicities within its borders. It has never been a truly independent
and unified nation. Throughout is long history that stretches back into antiquity it has been a battleground and a highway for
invading armies in both directions. NATO's gradual buildup in Ukraine follows in the footsteps of Napoleon and Hitler. Stephen
F. Cohen's new edition of "War with Russia?" is coming out in January 2020. Whether you agree with Professor Cohen's premises
for his argument it is worth taking a look at this gentleman's argument.
The U.S. military should depart immediately from Ukraine and the USG should stop funding Ukraine's government with any military
aid and assistance. Ukraine is looking a lot like the early pre-war stages in Vietnam. Nevertheless, Ukraine's governing system
is far more corrupt than the governing system of South Vietnam ever was.
Eugenie Basile , November 21, 2019 at 05:20
It is true that the only winner of the first Maidan was Russia. It got rid of a totally corrupt and financially broke snake
pit called Ukraine, while managing to secure Crimea and the strategic military port of Sevastopol. Now it is up to the EU and
US revolution organisers to keep on distributing cookies in order to prevent a total collapse of what is left of a divided country.
If a second Maidan occurs that would be a way for the West to get out of there in a hurry. The West has more to win than Russia,
this time.
Jimmy gates , November 21, 2019 at 01:19
CN live coverage of this, coupled with Oliver Stones two films "Ukraine on Fire " and "Revealing Ukraine " should help clear
up the confusion and crap that has been ladled on the public for over five years.
What we are seeing is not only a coup in Ukraine, but the destabilization of both the US and Russia in the stages of coup.
Crazily, the possibles for peace might be the collapse of the impeachment hoax and exposure of the plot that went haywire: that
two game show hosts were elected, in the US and Ukraine. The gods must be crazy.
Bob , November 22, 2019 at 03:20
Question; What happens now with Gazprom's offer to extend for another year the present contract due to lapse soon? Will the
new Prez be allowed to accept or even negotiate the offer?
Anonymot , November 20, 2019 at 22:16
The very small, but vigorous group who object loudly and the small, but vicious group that want to go to war over the Russian
province are probably the same crowd who were paid by our corrupt and one-eyed backers of the coup in the first place. Permanent
war is not desired by any citizenry anywhere, just those who sit in offices and decide by hocus pocus that it's a good idea. Our
one-eyed people (yes, there are some blood thirsty women at the top, too) need a pair of one-eye-correcting glasses. One-eyedness
causes a loss, not of vision so much as perspective.
Either they have made a brainless mess and lost everywhere they have initiated war since Korea or else endless wars and permanent
conflict are their policies. The latter is as stupid as the former. In each case, there is nothing realistically to be done to
stop it. It is ingrained into the way our entire political parties think as well as into the entire class of decision-makers in
each and every one of Washington's agencies. It's a mindset, not a few people. It was just as much both Clintons and Obama as
it was the Bush and Cheney gang. Trump is a wee bit special, because he has that mindset, but he's also foul and intellectually
retarded.
Note that those we prefer, Sanders, Warren, have not even whispered beyond a platitude here and there about foreign policy,
foreign affairs or foreign wars. The sole person who is running with a presidential mindset is strangely enough, a woman warrior,
Tulsi Gabbard! And her platform is to break up that mindset and deal with competitors with all of the strength this country has
left via diplomacy – and with peace as a goal. She also has her own progressive, but realistic domestic platform.
But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!)
and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers
from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig.
The kind of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and independence that Gabbard has is anathema to The Bushes and Clintons, the Deep
State folks.
Otherwise there will be and endless supply of think tankers and one-eyed profs to stir up pots like Kiev and Zelenskis ad infinitum.
Robert Carl Miller , November 20, 2019 at 20:29
The US orchestrated the coup of 2014 using the fascists already in Ukraine and Ukrainian Americans (and children and grandchildren)
who were OUN-B and were brought to the US under the Crusade For Freedom. The first generation were stone-cold fascists who fought
alongside the Nazis during their invasion of the USSR. The current DNC/CIA alliance has planned for Ukraine to heat up the cold
war with Russia.
The problem is that the Ukrainian army is broken and aside from the fascist units most average Ukrainians don't want to fight
the Russians or their brothers in Donbas. The US is calculating that its military aid and some unmentioned US troops will be able
to overcome the Donbas by force. If the US and Ukraine somehow draw Russia into this fight, which is exactly what the US militarists
want, there will be one of two outcomes: Either Ukraine will be wiped out quickly by Russian forces or there will be a nuclear
war.
As Russia finishes its Nord Stream 2 and with multiple other gas pipelines in the works to feed Europe's energy needs the US
energy industry, which constructed LNG terminals along the Atlantic Coast, has seen its dreams dashed. No longer does selling
LNG to Europe make any economic sense for.
Wait! We spent 5 Billion on regime change, a color revolution that succeeded only because we hired neo-Nazi shock troops to
spearhead the ouster of Yanukovych, a duly elected oligarch. Months later, after Ukraine's public sector had crumbled, in came
Biden with Burisma and Cargill with its GMO, which highlighted the neoliberal intentions behind the Western coup sponsorship.
Fortunes were made in the energy and agricultural sector, during the same winter that many Ukrainians were without enough heat
and food. But, that 's neoliberalism for you. Their suffering was just what we intended.
The civil unrest began only when Yanukovych rejected the EU-IMF austerity package in the November preceding the February coup
d'etat. That package required that Ukraine assist NATO militarily, buy weapons from US defense contractors, cut pensions, cut
social services, and slash the already tattered safety net while privatizing commonly held state assets. But, interestingly enough,
it required Ukraine to increase its military spending
The world bankers were intent upon squeezing the last bit of juice left in the Ukrainian turnip, In other words, we wanted
Yanukovych to become as pliant as the drunken Yeltsin was in the hands of Bill Clinton in 1993, which marked the beginning of
a disastrous and deadly decade for the Russian Federation.
Instead, Yanukovych, sounding the death knell for his own regime, rejected the EU -IMF austerity package, compounding this
mortal sin by signing an energy deal with the Russian Federation, which agreed to finance Ukrainian debt at 5% when international
bankers were charging 12% to finance this crippled country's loan. Putin was actually nicer to this basket case than we were,
though his motives are not altruistic, though perhaps not as draped in pretext as our own.
All the above is true and verifiable, but no one in the Lamestream Corporate Media, which includes MSNBC as well as FOX, will
report the current Ukrainian crisis in the context of the above facts. Those who master the world economy, having already mastered
the politicians and the media, can dominate and set the parameters of the debate without notice or without drawing attention to
themselves and their agendas.
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 12:28
John: Very good to remind us of these facts. I too remember that as Ukraine floundered in bankruptcy both Russia and the EU/US
proffered competing $15b rescue packages. Thanks for revealing the contrasting details of those offerings, which I wasn't fully
aware of.
As many here have already noted, how does it favor Russia to have a broken, unstable neighbor on its border? Even before these
authors served up that closing bon motte, their claim that the usual austerity cruelty measures of the IMF, WB, etc. will "in
the end" help Ukraine, was a dead giveaway.
And I am head-scratchingly curious why CN would post a piece such as this. To give us some light entertainment, like shooting
ducks in a barrel? I do agree with one of the authors' assertions though, that Zelenskiy's situation is precarious, as is anyone,
anywhere the US is intent on spreading its tentacles.
So Zelenskiy wins an election by 70% on a platform to normalize relations with Russia and in addition his Servant of the People
party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada. What is the threat he faces? What "challenge"? Is the writer thinking of the extremists
from western Ukraine rising again to produce a new anti-Russia hate-fest on Maidan, supported by the usual western meddlers? Not
many of the comments seem very convinced.
Mark Thomason , November 20, 2019 at 15:48
The Maidan events were protest against specific problems. None of those problems have changed. They have not even been addressed.
It has just been revolving abusers, "new boss same as the old boss."
Overlaid on that has been war, and all that entails, draining what remained of Ukraine's hopes.
The West has seen in that only what it wanted to see, which has little to do with what motivated the Maidan events. Those were
used, manipulated by the West, not addressed or helped.
The new guy could do better, perhaps only because he could hardly do worse. However, to say it might all blow up on him is
only to say that pressure has been building since failure of the last effort, and someday it is likely to blow.
Anna , November 20, 2019 at 12:34
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well there will only be one winner
from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia." By Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham
and Tatyana Malyarenko, a professor of international relations at the National University Odesa Law Academy.
Why does the tenor of this article bring to mind the Integrity Initiative? See: mintpressnews.com/the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/253014/
"The Integrity Initiative claims that it is "counter[ing] Russian disinformation and malign influence," and indeed, the main players
behind it appear intent on hyping the Russian threat to justify ramped up military budgets and a long-term war footing."
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 12:31
The deep state will continue to milk this Ukraine nightmare for their continuous mfg.of weapons and creating animosities between
the West and Russia. The deep divisions within Ukraine will play into the hands of the nefarious ones that crave chaos, the destroyers
of nations.
TimN , November 20, 2019 at 08:20
I see I'm not the person who was flummoxed by the conclusion of the article. The biggest outside obstacle to peace and stability
is the "West," of course. The "West?" You mean the US. Say that, not the euphemism.
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 13:11
I know what you mean and I hear you, as I am just as guilty of using the term "West" .It is the US which is driving this nightmare
and not the total of Western nations either .Both the Democrats and the Republicans are really not in control of the governance
of the United States .That control of the corrupted system as I see it ,is politically and judicially .The recently disclosed
Epstein pedophilia affair which is now clear that it had/has CIA and Mossad connections leads me to believe most of the politicians
and the legal system apparatus is deeply compromised and therefore have lost all control of good and fair governance if ever there
was such a thing .
Good point though ,it has become a habit to blame the West when in reality just certain factors of the West .I would certainly
include the UK in with the US as both being very compromised .
Donald Duck , November 20, 2019 at 05:45
The present situation in Ukraine is just how the US/EU wanted it. A permanent irritant on Russia's western borders. Unfortunately
this means that Ukraine is a malfunctioning state – the poorest in Europe – which is literally bleeding people at the rate described.
As a failed state Ukraine is going deeper into a hole of poverty and misery which will eventually lead to a national disintegration
as the various oblasts decided to go their own way.
Hans Zandvliet , November 19, 2019 at 21:49
It sounds to me like a rather russophobic article, like very many Ukranians are. I find it quite srtiking that the authors
are still using the term Maidan Revolution, while Stratfor's CEO George Friedman called it "the most blatant coup in history".
Anyone who still has doubts that it was a coup should watch Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire"
Russia is not even a signatory of the Minsk Agreements. Russia, just like France and Germany were only mediators in the negotiations
between the ethnic Russians of the Donbas region and the fascist regime in Kiev. Russia has absolutely nothing to "win" from a
divided and failed Ukrainian state on its borders. To Russia it's just a pain in the arse, which is what the military industrial
complex in Washington has gained by their Ukrainian coup.
John A , November 20, 2019 at 10:37
Exactly. As a rule of thumb, if an article uses 'Kyiv', a recent Ukrainianisation of the long accepted 'Kiev' in English, it
is going to be anti-Russia.
Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is
the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia
has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future.
Alan MacDonald , November 19, 2019 at 21:47
Promising situation for new alignment of interests
DavidH , November 19, 2019 at 20:58
Something doesn't seem right.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues to depend heavily, including for the implementation of
much-needed domestic reforms.
If the majority elected him to end the war, why would it play well domestically? There seems to be a wave of this, and then
a wave of that. Sort of same picture in Bolivia too.
Thanks to CN and the writers for news we never hear (though we certainly should). Great embeds too. How's the new prosecutor
doing? And how is the war in the east presently being fought? I think I heard remarks on these things on Loud&Clear. But
I switched to a "hotspot" in August. Was thinking then that all Loud&Clear shows were "saveable" and also that "CN Live!" was
saveable the former aren't, the latter only a few. And turns out I don't always feel like going out after work seeking free YiFi
to stream all this stuff while I'm sit'n in a joint like I imagined I would. So, for me for the most part it's gotta be in "print."
It would be nice if yall could do like Nader's Radio Hour, and make all the old CN Lives saveable.
Consortiumnews.com , November 19, 2019 at 22:05
Every minute of every episode of CN Live! can be found on our YouTube page.
Personanongrata , November 19, 2019 at 19:27
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's
continuing instability: Russia.
How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border?
AnneR , November 20, 2019 at 08:17
You have pointed out to me – thank you – another crystal clear indicator that these two authors are anti-Russian, profoundly
so.
It absolutely does not favor Russia to have an unstable, chaotic, fascist and US supported, instigated, militarized Ukraine
on its border. That is utter baloney, and they have to know that.
After all, that was one of the reasons for Soviet Russia spreading beyond its national borders after WWII – to create a buffer
zone against any more invasions from the west, to stop western nations killing Russians by the millions, to stop any attempt by
the west to grab Russian resources (still on NATO's cards).
Russia wants a peaceful, friendly neighbor, borderland country – not a virulent, dangerous chaotic mess one.
jo6pac , November 19, 2019 at 19:07
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well"
His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against
him and the Ukraine citizens.
RJB , November 19, 2019 at 18:01
What does Russia gain by Ukraine's continued instability?
luke , November 19, 2019 at 16:35
Poor analysis. Am I as a working class lad seriously that much more informed than a professor whos life should be dedicated
to studying this?
No mention of the US involvement in the coup. No mention of the word coup. No mention of fascists, the term used to describe
US armed autonomous fascist battalions was 'right wing militias'. Top it off with the opinion that neoliberal budget cuts will
eventually help things, because a quick look at the history books tells us no such thing.
Makes me think of a professor I know who told me how proud he was that the US has the freedom to make a film documenting Cheney's
war crimes.
I responded that it made me sick that he could watch such films and still be a pathetic apologist.
He shrugged it off and went back to his overpaid position poisoning the youth. If he had the opinions I have, he wouldn't be
a professor though would he?
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 11:54
luke: You are my father.
Remember all the hokum and "experts" paraded on the MSM during W's assault on Iraq? There was one ever-present talking head
from the ME (I've forgotten his name) that was so obviously a US boot-licker that he made me nauseous each time I saw him.
Very good observations and comment.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 15:59
Thank you for this overview. It is good that the corruption and economic disaster are pointed out – as they have been in polls
as the biggest problem in the minds of the citizens. 1 million emigrants per year is a catastrophe.
You write:
"If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West "
As you explain, this would please the far right (fascist) paramilitary groups and extreme nationalists from Galicia and Volhynia,
quite a small minority.
How about the Russian-speaking half or more of Ukrainians and the Russian ethnic group, making up a majority? Those who share
most of their culture with citizens of Russia? That have lots of ties there?
Because of this and also common sense, wouldn't many think that peace and stability with Russia would benefit Ukraine?
What do you see that Russia stands to gain from continued problems in Ukraine? Surely, Russia (and Ukraine) would be much better
off with peace, safety, stability and close ties and trade between these very close sibling nations.
This concluding remark lacks argument, is reasonably unfounded and quite simply silly.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 16:02
To clarify: with "This concluding remark", I mean the concluding remark in the article, that only Russia stands to win.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 15:43
In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
"... Trump also said that he wants Schiff to testify more than Hunter Biden , and repeated his claim that former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not an angel" and that she was speaking poorly of him to others. ..."
"... Trump repeated the claim that the hacked DNC server was given to Crowdstrike, "a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian." ..."
Bring It On! Trump Wants Senate Trial 'Of Some Length' If House Impeaches by Tyler Durden Fri, 11/22/2019 -
10:40 0 SHARES
After two weeks of public testimony revealed that Democrats' impeachment case against
President Donald Trump is largely made up of hurt feelings and foreign policy disagreements ,
the White House and allies say Trump is looking forward to a 'trial of some length' in the
Senate if the House votes to impeach so he can expose what a flimsy case has been built against
him.
"He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like
Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden, " said Hogan Gidley, principal deputy press secretary for the
White House.
Trump spent much of Thursday and Friday tweeting highlights from recent impeachment
testimony:
On Thursday morning, a group of Republican senators met with White House counsel Pat
Cipollone, Kellyanne Conway, Jared Kushner and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to discuss
strategy for a potential Senate trial which would likely take place in January, according to
Politico .
Two attendees said that the White House wants the Senate to hold a trial of some length
and not immediately dismiss any articles of impeachment with the GOP's majority, as some
Republicans have suggested.
The White House and Trump's GOP allies decided instead "they want some kind of factual
affirmative defense on the merits , " said one attendee.
One attendee noted that the White House wants to show a commitment to due process,
particularly since Republicans have criticized House Democrats for how they've conducted
their impeachment proceedings.
... ... ...
A White House official said the meeting "wasn't so much about the details, it was about
the Democrats' weak case and we want to show just how weak it is ." -
Politico
President Trump, meanwhile, has been tweeting and retweeting highlights from the last week -
and spent nearly an hour with Fox and Friends on Friday where he said he knows "exactly" who
the
Ukraine whistleblower is . Trump also said that he wants Schiff to testify more than
Hunter Biden , and repeated his claim that former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not
an angel" and that she was speaking poorly of him to others.
Trump also praised Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) for her performance during the public
impeachment hearings (23:40 in video above), as well as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) - tweeting and
retweeting clips related to Schiff's hearings.
"... Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, with a 1400 mile land border with Russia. The U.S. government under administrations since Bill Clinton's has sought to integrate Ukraine into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance. ..."
"... NATO forces were never deployed against Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. But Clinton (prompted by bellicose Hillary) used them to pound Serbian positions in Bosnia in the 1990s and to bomb Belgrade during the 1999 war to sever Kosovo from Serbia and convert it into a NATO base. ..."
"... For NATO strategists and supporters, Ukraine is the ultimate prize. ..."
"... After the coup of February 18-21, 2014, Aseniy Yatsenyuk, handpicked by Nuland, became prime minister ..."
"... After the February 2014 coup (depicted in the western press as a "revolution" toppling a "pro-Russian" leader), Ukraine informally joined the U.S. imperialist camp ..."
"... There is, in fact, no formal alliance, but Ukraine is now depicted as an ally, indeed one in desperate need of U.S. arms to resist the Russian invasion. ..."
Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, with a 1400 mile land border with Russia. The U.S. government under administrations
since Bill Clinton's has sought to integrate Ukraine into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance.
NATO is an artifact of the early Cold War and the Truman Doctrine, vowing any means necessary to stop the spread of Communism.
Founded in 1949, when the U.S. ruled most of the world, it included most of the countries of Europe except for those liberated
from Nazism by the Soviets, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, and Yugoslavia and Albania where
anti-fascist partisans seized power.
After the dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (a defense alliance formed in 1956 after West Germany was included in
NATO) in 1990, and the full restoration of capitalism to the countries of the former Soviet Union, there was no ideological east-west
conflict or another rationale to maintain the NATO alliance. It gradually redefined its mission as "maintaining stability" in
the post-Soviet era, in the wake of ethnic conflicts across Eurasia, and "counter-terrorism." Later "humanitarian" missions were
added.
In 1989 President George W. Bush promised Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that, following the reunification of
Germany with Moscow's assent, NATO would not "move one inch" eastwards. But while Bill Clinton was president in 1999, Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia joined the alliance. Under Bush's son, in 2004, the list grew: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia all joined. NATO now bordered Russia itself. Obama added Albania and Croatia. Under Trump, Montenegro
joined and North Macedonian entry is in the cards. The U.S. is obviously trying to incorporate every European nation possible
into an anti-Russian coalition for future deployment.
NATO forces were never deployed against Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. But Clinton (prompted by bellicose
Hillary) used them to pound Serbian positions in Bosnia in the 1990s and to bomb Belgrade during the 1999 war to sever Kosovo
from Serbia and convert it into a NATO base. (In both instances Clinton claimed "humanitarian" motives.) They were used too
in Afghanistan and Libya, far away from the North Atlantic, at U.S. direction to topple the Taliban, thereby producing an ongoing
insurgency, and to destroy Gadhafi's modern state of Libya. They are not a force of good in the world.
Russia has responded, angrily but cautiously, to NATO's incessant, inexplicable expansion. The three crucial moments have
been in 1999, when Russian troops rushed to Pristina Airport in Kosovo to preserve some national pride following the expansion
of NATO and the U.S. humiliation of the Serbs; in 2008 when Russia briefly invaded Georgia to punish it for attacks on South Ossetia
(and its just announced pursuit of NATO membership); and in 2014 when in response to the U.S.-backed Kiev putsch Moscow moved
to secure ongoing control of the Crimean Peninsula. These were obviously moves to discourage NATO expansion.
For NATO strategists and supporters, Ukraine is the ultimate prize. (Thereafter only Belarus and Georgia need absorption.)
It is still slated for NATO membership; this year its Secretary General Jens Soltenberg reiterated this commitment in Kiev. It
remains the position of the U.S. that both Ukraine and Georgia should join NATO. The German government on the other hand, far
more sensitive to the historical issues involved, notes that Ukrainian or Georgian membership would "cross a red line" with Russia.
The Ukrainian people are divided on the issue. It is good if the Germans and others can block bloc expansion.
From February 2010 to February 2014, Ukraine was headed by a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who opposed
NATO membership . He had been elected despite routine U.S. election meddling. He has been depicted in the U.S. press as "pro-Russian"
and opposed to Ukraine's membership in the European Union. In fact, he sought entry into the EU, using his U.S. aide Paul Manafort
towards that end, and backed out of an agreement after realizing the political costs of the austerity program required. He was
"pro-Russian" in that he is ethnic Russian in a multi-ethnic country, and was while in power inclined to maintain good relations
with the northern neighbor. He was targeted by Hillary Clinton appointee Victoria Nuland (wife of neocon warmonger Robert Kagan)
for removal. He was charged with denying the Ukrainian people's "European aspirations" -- meaning, he was resisting an association
with the EU (and NATO).
He was indeed overthrown, succeeded by an new regime that provoked revolt among the ethnic Russians in the east from the outset.
The U.S. attempt to install a regime that could quickly align with the west, joining the EU and NATO as the usual package, resulted
in civil conflict and the Russian re-annexation of Crimea. Finally, the NATO effort to dominate Eurasia met a snag when the Russians
said: No way we'll concede to you the base port of the Black Sea Fleet since Empress Catherine's time, in 1785.
After the coup of February 18-21, 2014, Aseniy Yatsenyuk, handpicked by Nuland, became prime minister. Russia refused
to recognize the government he headed, stacked with NATO supporters. Only when Ukraine held a presidential election, and a candidate
acceptable to Moscow, Petro Poroshenko, was elected, did the Russians actively engage in diplomacy with Kiev. The result is the
Minsk Accords and an ongoing process of negotiations between Kiev, the Donbas separatists, Moscow, Germany and France. The key
issue of Donbas autonomy as a precondition for peace has met with opposition in the parliament but since the election of Volodomir
Zelensky, there have been concrete moves towards peace. Not that there has been much heavy fighting since 2015. Russia and Ukraine
are working with Europe to find a solution. It would be good for the U.S. to avoid interfering.
After the February 2014 coup (depicted in the western press as a "revolution" toppling a "pro-Russian" leader), Ukraine
informally joined the U.S. imperialist camp. There is, in fact, no formal alliance, but Ukraine is now depicted as an
ally, indeed one in desperate need of U.S. arms to resist the Russian invasion. But there has been no real Russian invasion,
just lots of hype; nowadays the talking heads refer to "Russian-backed" forces in Ukraine, referring to ethnic Russian-Ukrainians;
they exploit the general ignorance of people in this country about history and geography and fudge Russians with Russian-Ukrainians
(or sometimes any Slavs). And the annexation of Crimea was bloodless and popularly supported. The provision of $ 380 million in
Javelin anti-tank missiles and other weaponry to the Kiev government is unlikely to contribute to a settlement of the Donbas problem.
***
Amidst all the attention to detail, to phone calls and transcripts and secret visits, those pressing for Trump's impeachment (on
bribery grounds) never discuss the context of this little scandal.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please enter a valid
email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
The fact that Ukraine has been hopelessly corrupt since it became independent with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991;
the fact that the U.S. underwrote the 2014 coup;
the fact that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings two months after the coup (while his father was the Obama team's
point man on Ukrainian corruption) and served to April 2019;
and most of all, the fact that the U.S. wants to get Ukraine into NATO, surrounding European Russia and grabbing Crimea for
itself.
Trying to acquire dirt on the Bidens by strong-arming a foreign leader, threatening an arms supply cut-off, is bad I suppose,
by definition. But providing arms to stoke a conflict ignited by U.S. interference in Ukraine is worse. Had the U.S. not spent $
5 billion (Nuland's figure) to "support the Ukrainian people's European aspirations;" had John McCain and Lesley Graham not passed
out cookies with Nuland in Maidan; had NATO not declared its intention to include Kiev in the alliance, the east would be quiet as
usual. The coup and immediate rescinding of the law respecting Russian speakers' linguistic rights provoked rebellion.
The Ukraine scandal could be a teaching opportunity: this is where U.S. aggression leads. You provoke Russia again and again,
with each new admission into NATO. At some point, Russia has to take action. It cannot let a Texas-size country on its southern flank
join a military alliance directed at itself. Especially it cannot accept loss of control of the Crimean Peninsula.
That Nuland in the days before the planned coup did not anticipate this Russian reaction is puzzling. Did she really think the
conquest of Ukraine would be so easy? Or did she expect the Russian counter-moves, thinking that once Ukraine was in NATO Russia
would have to back off? Is that still the dominant assumption in the State Department?
Now a president with zero concern about Ukraine and its people is accused of a shocking reluctance to deliver weapons to a country
invaded by Russia, "our greatest adversary" according to cable anchors.
May he be impeached, of course! But if he falls, replaced by leadership more bent on provoking Russia by NATO expansion, the world
will be more dangerous than it is now under Trump.
When wall in Berlin felt down in 1989 some regions in USSR took step ahead and asked Highest soviet to be recognized as autonomous
region (oblast) of USSR instead of being homogenous part of Soviet Republics: Crimea, Karabakh, S Osetia, Podnestria. Reason for
it was that in those regions lived mostly Russians as USSR was developing since 1917. For example Poroshenko's dady was head of
steel mill in Podnestria.
Everything went smooth even thru transformation of USSR to CIS. Belovezha accord was dealing with this issue and all agreed
that they will recognize current status of those regions as Autono omous oblast of USSR until referendum in those regions about
selfdeclaration where they want to be.
But all this were just sweet words that later turned into conflicts because those guys did not keep their words.
As A US citizen who spends about half his time in Ukraine (and I was there during the fictitious "Russian Invasion" of Lugansk
in April 2014) I can attest that every point made in this article is true.
"Massive Pay-For-Play" Soros-Ukraine Scheme Facilitated By US Diplomats
They took all the corruption cases away from the prosecutor general, they gave it to the anti-corruption bureau, and they got
rid of all the cases that offended Soros, and they included all the cases against Soros' enemies
All plans were cooked under obama and continue under hillary. Never thought The Donald will win and nothing but troubles to
the easy massive wealth coming.
This impeachment is becoming a blessing to expose the mob corruption.
7. Ukraine is the ultimate prize...because it allows the spoiled children of Pelosi and Biden and Kerry to redirect US "Aid"
back into the financial interests of their families.
Otherwise, Ukraine is of negative value. Hence, Macron has ruled out Ukraine being brought into the EU until such time as the
EU has solved all of its many issues (ie never).
When actually seeing the historical crime line of the giant octopus absorbtion of countries into NATO..... The conspricy "
theory is fact.
Proof positive of the restructuring of a one world military not ruled by souverign countries but a conglomerate of " untied
Nations" run by ..... Ummmm hold, hold, hold ... Drum roll....
INTERNATIONAL BANKERS:
Who are the ONLY ones who profit from war or "maintaining stabilizers" who stir the pot on both sides for perpetual arms deals
( while urging individual non gun legislatiin for citizens) and weapons manufacturing and of course cyber internet control by
Google search engines.
Author glosses over the UKR Separatists' Declarations of Independence as LNR, DNR, and the Republic of Crimea; and the 3 Breakaway
States' requests to Join the Russian Federation.
Author also forgets to mention Crimea being of Russia until Kruschev's Reassignment; and Clarifying Sevastopolis always being
a Naval Base and City for Moscow.
RUS Annexation of Crimea occured AFTER the Secession and Reunification Votes by Resident Crimeans.
*****Conclusion:
**** Troll Article written by an USA/NATO/EU/UKR Apologist.
The provision of $ 380 million in Javelin anti-tank missiles and other weaponry to the Kiev government is
..likely to lead to Javelin atms and other ending up enriching corrupt Ukrainians and their partners Stateside and in the hands
of 3rd world dictators and or America's Muslim Jihadist legions anywhere there's an uncooperative government.
Trying to acquire dirt on the Bidens by strong-arming a foreign leader, threatening an arms supply cut-off, is bad I suppose,
by definition.
I stopped reading right there.
Biden admitted to threatening Ukraine with his own damn mouth. Four (4) DNC hacks have kids getting insane paychecks from Ukraine
for basically nothing more than a skim/bribery flowchart.
Hunter Biden is a crackhead, his father is useless but thinks he will be the next President. What a joke..
No mention, because it has now become irrelevant. Nordstream 2 and Turkstream will deprive the Ukranian government of the several
billion dollars per year in revenue. Of course, the American taxpayer will be asked to make that money up. Dead weight.
And by the way, if they had any gas reserves, they wouldn't be depending on the Russian Federation to pay them transit fees.
They've got that black, productive soil. I'll give them that. But France has pretty productive soil too. No mention of the French
farmer's protest on not being able to sell their crops to the Russian Federation, either.
On November 6, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a link to a
Breitbart article about Ciaramella and wrote, "Because of course he did!!! Alleged
'Whistleblower' Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely with Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer." The tweet led
to anger and the president's son responded, "The entire media is #Triggered that I (a private
citizen) tweeted out a story naming the alleged whistleblower. Are they going to pretend that
his name hasn't been in the public domain for weeks now? Numerous people & news outlets
including Real Clear Politics already ID'd him."
Ciaramella could not be reached for comment by Heavy. The whistleblower's attorneys issued a
statement saying they neither confirm nor deny Ciarmella is the whistleblower. Ciaramella's
father told Real Clear Investigations he doubts his son is the whistleblower, saying, "He
didn't have that kind of access to that kind of information. He's just a guy going to work
every day."
The whistleblower's attorneys and Democrats have fought to keep his identity concealed,
while Trump and his Republican allies have called for him to be identified publicly, saying he
should be questioned about why he came forward and possible political bias because of his
background. The existence of whistleblower complaint regarding Trump's conduct with Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky was first revealed in September.
After Real Clear Investigation's report, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, whose
nationally syndicated show reaches millions of listeners, named Ciaramella on air.
While Fox News has banned its hosts and contributors from mentioning Ciaramella's name,
according to CNN,
one of the network's guests, syndicated radio host Lars Larson, said the name during a segment
on November 7 on "Outnumbered Overtime" with Harris Faulkner. She did not respond or mention
his use of Ciaramella's name.
Mark Zaid and
Andrew Bakaj , the
attorneys who are representing the whistleblower, issued a statement about Ciaramella being
identified as possibly being their client, "Our client is legally entitled to anonymity.
Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that
individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or
their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications
reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle
of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless."
Zaid and Bakaj issued an additional statement after Trump Jr.'s tweet, saying, "We will
note, however, that publication or promotion of a name shows the desperation to deflect from
the substance of the whistleblower complaint. It will not relieve the president of the need to
address the substantive allegations, all of which have been substantially proven to be
true."
According to the Washington Examiner , Ciaramella is currently detailed by the CIA to the
National Intelligence Committee, where he works as a deputy national intelligence officer for
Russia and Eurasia. He reports to Trump's acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire . He likely
works closely with Alexander Vindman, the impeachment inquiry witness who is now Ukraine
director for the NSC, Ciaramella's former role.
A former Trump official told the Examiner, "It is close to a mathematical certainty that
(Vindman and the whistleblower) know one another and that (the whistleblower) is being used to
provide analytical support to the National Security Council on the topics of Russia and
Ukraine. And that is where they would have crossed paths. They would know who one another are."
Another former Trump official said Vindman and Ciaramella both spent time at the U.S. Embassy
in Ukraine during the Obama administration. And they have both been working on Ukraine issues
for several years.
Vindman said during his Congressional deposition, "I want the committee to know I am not the
whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee's attention. I do not know
who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of
the whistleblower." Vindman testified that he listened in on the July 25 call at question in
the impeachment inquiry and was concerned. ""I was concerned by the call. I did not think it
was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried
about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine," he testified.
Here's what you need to know about Eric Ciaramella:
1. Ciaramella Is a Ukraine Expert for the CIA Whose Background Matches Details About the
Whistleblower Previously Reported by The New York Times
Eric Ciaramella, 33, is a Ukraine expert and his background matches the biographical details
reported
by The New York Times and other media outlets about the whistleblower. According to The
Times, the whistleblower is a CIA officer who was detailed to work at the White House before
returning to the CIA. The Times wrote, "His complaint suggested he was an analyst by training
and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe,
demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge
of the law."
The whistleblower raised concerns that Trump had asked Zelensky during a July 2019 phone
call to investigate former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden , and his son,
Hunter Biden . Trump
is accused of forcing a quid pro quo in which aid to Ukraine would only be released if an
investigation was launched.
In September, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment, a redacted
version of the whistleblower's complaint and a summary of Trump's call with Zelensky were made
public. The complaint revealed that the whistleblower was not on the call, but learned of
concerning information from others with direct knowledge about it.
"The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had
transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a 'discussion ongoing' with
White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials'
retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain," the
whistleblower wrote.
In the weeks since, several current and former State Department and other government
officials have testified behind closed doors before House committees, with many providing
verification of the whistleblower's claims, according to multiple reports. Sources told Real
Clear Investigations that Ciaramella's name has been mentioned as the whistleblower during the
closed-door testimony.
Ciaramella has worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for several years and was assigned
to the White House during the end of the Obama administration. He worked closely with Biden in
his role as an expert on Ukraine. Ciaramella also has ties to Sean Misko, a former NSC
co-worker who now works for Representative Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee.
According to
The New York Times , the whistleblower first went to a CIA lawyer and then to an unnamed
Schiff aide before filing the whistleblower complaint. The aide told the whistleblower to
follow the formal process, but conveyed some of the information he learned from him to Schiff,
without revealing his name, The Times reported.
"Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community," said
Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, told The Times.
The whistleblower's ties to Democrats, including Biden, Schiff, former CIA Director John
Brennan, former Director of Intelligence James Clapper and former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice, have created controversy, with Trump and Republicans using his past work with them
in an attempt to discredit him. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told a local radio station in his
home state of Texas that many in Washington D.C. knew the whistleblower's identity, calling him
a "staunch Democrat," and former "point person on Ukraine," who never called out corruption in
the Eastern European country.
Ciaramella has been in the crosshairs of Republicans previously, after some on the far right
tied him to the Obama-associated "deep state" in 2017, accusing him of undermining Trump while
he was working in the White House.
The whistleblower's attorneys have received more than $220,000 in donations to a
GoFundMe campaign set up by the group Whistleblower Aid in support of his attorneys, Mark
Zaid and Andrew Bakaj.
"A U.S. intelligence officer who filed an urgent report of government misconduct needs your
help. This brave individual took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. We're working
with the whistleblower and launched a crowdfunding effort to support the whistleblower's
lawyers," the GoFundMe states. "These whistleblowers took great personal risks, not for
politics or personal gain, but to defend our democracy. We need to have their backs."
The GoFundMe adds, "If we raise more than we need, Whistleblower Aid will use the money to
help more brave whistleblowers stand up to executive overreach."
2. Eric Ciaramella Grew Up in Connecticut,
Eric Ciaramella.
Eric Ciaramella grew up in Prospect, Connecticut, as one of three children. He spent time
attending Woodland Regional High School in Beacon Falls, Connecticut, and then graduated from
Chase Collegiate School, in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2004, according to the prep school's
alumni magazine.
After high school, Ciaramella attended Yale University, graduating in 2008 as a Russian and
East European studies major. In 2007, he was awarded a grant by the Yale Macmillan Center
for European Union Studies to "research on the perceptions of the EU among rural Italian
residents."
While at Yale, Ciaramella, who speaks Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic, led a protest over the
departure of an Arabic department professor, according
to the Yale Daily News. The student newspaper wrote, "Students convened outside Silliman at
9 a.m., all dressed in white to symbolize their future goal of bridging the gap between the
United States and the Middle East through the use of the Arab language, said Eric Ciaramella
'08, one of the students who led the protest."
Ciaramella also studied at Harvard University, focusing on Russia, Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, according to the school's website. He
received a grant in 2009 for research on "Language in the Public Sphere in Three
Post-Soviet Capital Cities," Tbilisi, Georgia; Yerevan, Armenia; Baku, Azerbaijan. Ciaramella
was additionally a corresponding author for Harvard's Department of Linguistics and wrote a
paper in 2015 titled, "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun."
Ciaramella worked at the World Bank after college,
according to a 2011 publication by the international financial institution. In the World
Bank report, "Russia: Reshaping Economic Geography," published in June 2011, Ciaramella is
listed in the acknowledgments for making "important contributions" to the research. On a
now-deleted Linkedin profile, he described himself as being a "Consultant, Poverty
Reduction/Economic Management" at World Bank. Ciaramella also deleted his Facebook profile page
and does not appear to have any other social media.
Public records show that Ciaramella was a registered Democrat while he lived in Connecticut.
According
to CNN , the inspector general for the intelligence committee mentioned and dismissed
concerns about political bias because the whistleblower is registered as a Democrat.
Inspector General Michael Atkinson wrote, "Further although the ICIG's preliminary reviewed
identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in
favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the
complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible' particularly given the other
information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review."
Mark Zaid, an attorney for the whistleblower tweeted in response to the story, "We won't
comment on identifying info but if true, give me a break! Bias? Seriously? Most (people) are."
Another attorney for the whistleblower, Andrew Bakaj, told CNN that the whistleblower had
"contact with presidential candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials --
not as candidates," and said the whistleblower "has never worked for or advised a political
candidate, campaign or party.
3. Ciaramella Was Detailed to the National Security Council at the White House in 2015 After
Joining the CIA as an Analyst Focusing on Ukraine & Russia
Eric Ciaramella joined the Central Intelligence Agency at some point during President
Obama's second term. According to reports by The Washington Post and The New York Times about
the whistleblower, prior to Ciaramella being named, and online records, Ciaramella was detailed
to the White House to serve as a Ukraine expert with the National Security Council in 2015. He
worked under National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The NSC is made up of analysts and staffers
from various intelligence agencies, including the CIA, who are detailed to the White House for
a period of time, before eventually returning to their parent agencies.
During his time with the National Security Council, Ciaramella also worked with then-Vice
President Biden, who was working closely on Ukraine issues at the end of Obama's time in
office. Ciaramella is also
listed as a guest at a 2016 luncheon to honor the prime minister of Italy, along with
Biden.
In November 2015, Ciaramella is named as one of
the officials who attended a White House meeting with Ukrainian religious leaders, along
with his boss, Charles Kupchan . The Ukrainian religious
leaders delivered a letter appealing to President Obama for aid for their country. Ciaramella
is listed as the "NSC Director for Ukraine." That position is now held by Alexander Vindman , a key witness
in the impeachment inquiry, who listened to the call between President Trump and President
Zelensky.
Ciaramella also has ties to former Democratic National Committee operative and opposition
researcher Alexandra Chalupa , a
Ukrainian-American who has been targeted by some conservatives as being behind an effort to
accuse the Trump campaign of Russian collusion. Chalupa, then with the National Democratic
Ethnic Coordinating Committee, was also in attendance at the November 2015 meeting with
Ukrainian religious leaders, according to public records.
While Republicans have accused Chalupa of being a leader of a conspiracy to bring down Trump
with false accusations of collusion with Russia, Democrats have said Chalupa was among the
first to bring forward credible information about wrongdoing by Paul Manafort and the Trump
campaign and say she has been smeared because of that.
4. Ciaramella Remained at the NSC During the Earlier Months of the Trump Administration
& an Email Ciaramella Sent While He Was Still Assigned to NSC Was Cited in the
Getty National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster speaks during a briefing at the White House
on May 16, 2017.
Eric Ciaramella did not leave the National Security Council at the end of the Obama
administration. He remained in place during the first few months of the Trump White House. The
NSC staff was at a barebones level at the time after the resignation of Lt. General Michael
Flynn, who had been Trump's first National Security Adviser. Ciaramella worked on Eastern
European issues along with another Obama administration holdover, Fiona Hil l.
When Lt. General
H.R. McMaster was named Trump's new national security adviser, Ciaramella served as
McMaster's personal aide. In the summer of 2017, Ciaramella returned to the CIA, where he is
still an active employee.
An email sent by Ciaramella while he was still assigned to the NSC was cited as a footnote in
Robert Mueller's report on the Trump investigation. The email was titled "(5/10/17 Email,
Ciaramella to Kelly et al.)," but details of the email are not included in the redacted
report.
Officials who worked with Ciaramella told Foreign Policy he is known for his professionalism
and taking a nonpartisan stance, telling Foreign Policy he is a "seasoned pro" and "one of the
best that the civil service has." His former boss, Charles Kupchan,
told Foreign Policy , Ciaramella is one of the, "worker bees of the federal government.
They want to serve the nation, and they care deeply about the issues they're working on."
Kupchan said Ciaramella was brought in to work on Ukraine, but, "He did such an impressive
job, I asked him to help share the burden on the counter-ISIL portfolio."
Trump administration officials also praised Ciaramella, telling Foreign Policy,""H.R.
thought he did a good job. Everybody was happy with his performance. He wouldn't have been
there if he weren't trusted."
Ciaramella is no stranger to drawing the ire of Trump supporters. He was named by the
far-right as a supposed member of the "deep state" in 2017 and was the subject of baseless
accusations accusing him of leaking information to the media, simply because of his ties to
former members of the Obama administration, including ex-National Security Adviser Susan Rice,
who has often been accused of trying to undermine Trump.
His ties to Rice, Brennan, Clapper and Obama made him an easy target for the right. He was
accused of leaking information to the media about Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, without any evidence.
Ciaramella was also accused of being a major leaker while working with McMaster. Several
far-right personalities waged an open war on social media and on pro-Trump websites
against McMaster during his time as national security adviser, constantly claiming he was
undermining Trump and had too many former Obama aides on his team. McMaster also worked with
Abigail Grace and Sean Misko, both also Obama holdovers. Grace and Misko are now aides to Rep.
Schiff. McMaster's staffers were frequently accused of being behind
leaks of embarrassing details about Trump's calls to foreign leaders. None of those
accusations were ever proven.
According to a March 2019 article in Politico:
Trump political appointees were believed to frequently talk to journalists who worked for
conservative media outlets. For months, those outlets published names of career Civil and
Foreign Service officers in the NSC and other government agencies whose loyalties they deemed
suspect. Career staffers who had joined the U.S. government many years, sometimes decades,
earlier were suddenly cast as Obama loyalists determined to derail Trump's agenda as part of
a "deep state." The people targeted included a State Department civil servant of Iranian
descent who'd joined the government under the George W. Bush administration; a highly
respected Foreign Service officer who dealt with Israeli issues; and an NSC staffer who dealt
with European and Russian issues. The latter, Eric Ciaramella, reportedly left the NSC after
receiving death threats.
Ciaramella was outed in a Medium article by the far-right figure Mike Cernovich in June
2017, claiming that the former Obama aide wanted to "sabotage" Trump. Foreign Policy
wrote in 2017 , "The piece described Eric Ciaramella as 'pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia' and
alleged, with no evidence, that he was possibly responsible for high-level leaks. Cernovich
wrote, "Nothing in his résumé indicates that Ciaramella will put America First.
His entire life arc indicates he will sabotage Trump and leak information to the press whenever
possible."
The response to the piece included online threats of violence against Ciaramella, which
contributed to his decision to leave his job at the National Security Council a few weeks
early, according to two sources familiar with the situation."
Charles Kupchan, who was the senior director for European Affairs on the NSC, was
Ciaramella's boss for two years during the Obama administration. Kupchan, a key Obama adviser,
told Foreign Policy the alt-right led an "unprecedented" attack on civil servants, calling the
"systematic hostility" against the "deep state" as "misplaced" and "dangerous."
As speculation about whether Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower spreads online and in
conservative media and circles, elected Republican officials are calling for his identity to be
revealed.
"Well, as far as that particular person, regardless of whether or not he's a whistleblower,
he apparently worked for [former CIA Director John] Brennan. He worked for H.R. McMaster. He
worked for Biden. He was tasked to the National Security Council on Ukraine," Texas Republican
Rep. Louie Gohmert
told the Washington Examiner . "And, gee, sounds like he's got bigger problems than being a
whistleblower, regardless of whether he is or not."
Gohmert mentioned Ciaramella's name, out of the blue, during an open House hearing on
unrelated issues on October 22.
Gohmert was questioning Natalie Jaresko, who is the executive director of a fiscal board
that oversees Puerto Rico's debt, during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. Jaresko
was previously Ukraine's finance minister. Gohmert asked Jaresko, if, in her previous role, she
was, aware of "Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko dispatching Olga Bielkova or any other
Ukrainian official to the U.S. in order to conduct an influence campaign on the 2016 election
here in the United States?" He then asked, "Are you aware of Ukrainian parliamentarian
Bielkova's April 12 meetings with Liz Zentos and Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National Security
Council?"
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows told reporters, "I can't tell you what happens in the
depositions, but I can tell you there's one person in one's group of staff members who know who
the whistleblower is and that is Adam Schiff, and so you need to ask him whether this guy is
the real deal."
Senator Rand Paul tweeted, "It is being reported that the whistleblower was Joe Biden's
point man on Ukraine. It is imperative the whistleblower is subpoenaed and asked under oath
about Hunter Biden and corruption."
Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and the former chief of staff for the National Security
Council, told Real Clear Investigations, "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington
Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president
knows who he is. They're hiding him. They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Democrats have sought to keep the name concealed and have criticized efforts by Republicans
to name the whistleblower. Democratic Rep. David Cicilline, of Rhode Island, tweeted, "If you
spent part of today Tweeting the name of a person you think is the whistleblower, you probably
need to re-evaluate your life."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters it would be "unpatriotic" to reveal the
whistleblower's identity:
Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor turned CNN legal analyst, tweeted, "Today
Trump's allies spread the name of a man they believe is the whistleblower. Some call for his
prosecution. They're ruining the life of a public servant who may not be the right guy. Plus
there's no evidence he did anything wrong. This is so desperate and irresponsible."
This is ******* brilliant. Trump is daring the loser Democrats to impeach him so the
Republicans in charge of the senate can hold their own propaganda filled media campaign.
This one will have 2 huge differences from the senate.
This is ******* brilliant. Trump is daring the loser Democrats to impeach him so the
Republicans in charge of the senate can hold their own propaganda filled media campaign.
This one will have 2 huge differences from the senate.
Trump knows more about politics than all of the Democrats and Republicans combined. Who
else could have
Won the presidency while being outspent over 2 to 1
Prospered while the Deep State and Democrats throw a myriad of smears against him.
Prospered while MSM has 90% coverage against him.
It's the Democrats who know nothing about politics. Otherwise they would have never
started the impeachment nonsense which has only energized Trumps base and ensured his
landslide victory in 2020.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all you
need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the
front lines
of a strategic
competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's
revanchist Russia
. Russia is
a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one.
The United States aids Ukraine and her
people so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko.
The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a
POTUS kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins –
Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal clear; and
it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable dereliction of
duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger about
losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the Donald from
office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the Deep State, which
has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald has declined
to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He thereby threatens the
Empire's raison d'être to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and impeachment
inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in office – and
especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might actually make peace with Russia
and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine
would be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic aid –
a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence peddling which
ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election, and, in return,
incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a kleptocratic
state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy with virtually zero
capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders
NATO an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's imperial
self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be inadvertently
sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads they are dragging out
of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons – just maybe their utterly
preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the
somnolent American public to the absurdity of the entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the Donbas rather
than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above was reprinted in
the
New York Times
or
The
Onion
?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and Ambassador
Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete chimera;
and the
notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer against Russian aggression
is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in Alaska a
decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The the GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is just
8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a multitude of
nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of wheat fields. That's
not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war machine capable of threatening
the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar purchasing
terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about
$200 billion
compared to
$2.2
trillion
for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines likely
to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work force. That's a
problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age population – even
supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs – is heading south as far into
the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population will
be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is already just a
fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment anywhere
near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its
$61 billion
of military
outlays in 2018 amounted to less than
32 days
of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in America
short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation of
mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of cold war when the
Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time
it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the
Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the country's
anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and populations of Belarus, Ukraine,
Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans" among others. Yet given those realities
we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs
the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable. Not
only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what he's got.
That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American continent is
nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea power
projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist of an armada
of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics warfare capability and
the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, at
least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70
aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and attached logistics ships.
The US has
eleven
such carrier strike groups. Russia has
zero
modern
carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the Israeli paper,
Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a long
history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's cold
waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent refueling and
resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this smoke
belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at all from the high
tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in the
Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most technologically
advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have numerical
superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it across
thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing fighter and
attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700 transport and airlift
aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous. Russia is
essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed, for the world's
only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat from Moscow is a prime
facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and relationship
with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and the
current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more than that of
Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with Putin's
Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the tensions that do
exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February 2014 were fomented by
Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor, NATO
doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office pointing out its
buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing up a
storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke. They are
fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their budgets or
taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to
mention the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany.
Vladimir Putin isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army
taking the Fuehrer-bunker – but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly willing
to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43
billion
on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion GDP, which
happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that have
emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own book in
behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the final
Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2 -
Democrats Empower a Pack of Paranoid Neocon Morons
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more ludicrous. The
actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from Washington when it instigated,
funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of Kiev during February 2014, which
illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on the grounds that he was too friendly
with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since
Russia's military invasion in 2014
. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine.
Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of global
attention that they commanded.
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist government
with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea and the Donbas –
that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep.
And those interests
included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea which
had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries under czars and commissars
alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater detail
below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have been paraded
before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the "invasion" quote
cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of Ambassador
Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington rendition of the
Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates
thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided
and
selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried
to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests
emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin
invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent
military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet
governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a shred of
truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate military and
economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of neocon stooges took
exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting not the
constitution and the rule of law, but the
bipartisan political consensus
on
Capitol Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her
Wall Street Journal
platform
to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a military
career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the blunt-spoken American military
men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter."
They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned Ukraine into
a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks, NGOs, foreign policy
experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies – from DOD through the State
Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Board for International Broadcasting and
countless more – which ply their trade in the Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes; they're
apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as they lead the nation to
the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous.
Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their
part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship
between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or the intensity
of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of
increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story, starting
with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February 2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align itself
economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the European Union and
NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of Ukraine then led by
Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal from Moscow than was
being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of Kiev
reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the east and
Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine during the 1930s and
Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven outbreak of
Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March 2014 to formally
re-affiliate
with Mother Russia.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of
must-read stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try
again.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would remind that
Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the
last 800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few and
far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals with or
surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks, Muscovites,
Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the Kingdom
of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars) ceased
their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas of the map
north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which had
emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map also makes
clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk sharing common
linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for the administrative
convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917 per the
yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were amalgamated by
absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the 18th
and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating
Russian populations
to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in St.
Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war between the
so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these territories and
elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist rulers
proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia into one of its
four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) – along with the Russian,
Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the infamous
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto the Red Army
and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue areas (Volhynia and
parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession struggle in
1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his supporters in Kiev.
That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given that precious few Ukrainians
actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist Russia after it was purchased by
Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers.
The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending Adam's
Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial integrity
and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of history's most
despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of Russian
aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region (yellow area with
brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian and ethnic Ukrainians who
predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian, Moldovan,
Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev in February
2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all around to
which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea – have been intimately
connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a
1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the Russian
Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff would be NATO
forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and
industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict."
Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share strong economic, trade, cultural,
ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive as
leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia,
spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former
assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded much of this
effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the
domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed
part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures"
causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea, the
reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they
consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in
1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the national leadership
would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent
national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of
"unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join NATO
was just plain nuts,
as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
Tags
"In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an
integral part of Mother Russia, serving as its breadbasket and
iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given
this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and
aggressively induced to join NATO was just plain nuts,
as we
will amplify further in Part 3 (to come)."
This seemed like a sensible column until I got to this:
"... identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging
population and third-rate economy with virtually zero capacity to
project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders."
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it
actually is: Namely, a kleptocratic state sitting atop an
aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
Maybe the Russians are normal, intelligent people just trying
to improve themselves and their country. And are interested in
commerce not conquest no matter what their GDP.
Agree with Stockman that the Russian "threat" is a red herring.
But it's not because Russia is the pathological, bankrupt society
that he claims it to be.
Stockman is leftover reaganomics and we all know what that ****
turned out along with Thatcherite **** and Pinochet ****.
Trickle down economics.....but blood and not oligarch's piss
for the thirsting masses that clowns like Stockman and co.
despises..
Deluded as ever imaginging that USSA isn't burned
to the bone.
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual"
is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall
provide" is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will
take care of you" is lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take
care of you" is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in "the goodness of humanity"
is lost.
Stockman writes the Russia has "virtually zero capacity to project
21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders."
Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and defeated head
choppers in Syria.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and defeated
head choppers in Syria.
The "head choppers" in Syria were Sunni jihadist lunatics
funded by the United States. The U.S. shoveled thousands of
tons of weapons to those cutthroats. For Washington, regime
change trumped the "collateral damage" slaughter of the Shia,
Alawite, Christian, Druze and Kurdish populations in Syria by
the U.S. proxy Sunni goons.
Here are some Christian communities in Syria celebrating
their holy days after they had been liberated from the U.S.
backed terrorists by the Syrian Army and the Russians:
The Russians are accustomed to survive, they went through too
many wars, their weapons are created for war and to kill. They
are nationalists (although not like the Chinese - without
extremes) and are very attached to their country. Mother Russia
- says a lot. The Americans suffered the last time in
1861-1865, in United States now clan-corporate "capitalism"
with the suppression of free markets and the dominance of
lobbyists whose interests do not coincide with the national
interests of the United States. That's why I stopped respecting
Americans. The irony of fate is that Russians are capitalists
now, and the Americans are now ******* USSR version 2.0.
To which the hunt for the bogeyman will bankrupt us whether it
be Putin, Xi, Kim, Assad buying all these toys many of which
haven't proven to be as reliable as the Russian stuff. Looking
at the Russian GDP cart you see the big fall after the seizure
of Crimea and the subsequent sanctions. Russian as now turned
inward and produces a lot of what was imported from Europe and
those markets will never return to the Europeans. Merkel's
business people are SCREAMING to lift the sanctions as their
economy flounders. Same with many other countries. The trade
war with China has irrevocably hurt our farmers. Russia and
their Jon Deere look-a like combines are now cranking out food
for the world.
The don't have to be huge, they have to be
within budget. Trust me, Russia hasn't found half the minerals
in their lands.
Israel's Secret Plan for a
Second Israel in Ukraine
A secret report provided to the Israeli government by a select
panel of scholars of Jewish history drawn from academia and other
research centers, concluded that that European Jews are in fact
descended from Khazars - Datelined Jerusalem and Zhitomir,
Ukraine, March 16, 2014
One of the main reasons why Ukrainian Jewish billionaire tycoon
Ihor
Kolomoisky
[Zelenskiy's main sponsor], the governor of
Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk province and citizen of Ukraine, Israel,
and Cyprus, is spending tens of millions of dollars on the
recruitment of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis
from other parts of Europe to fight against the Russian-speaking
majority in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, is a fear that
plans to turn Ukraine into a second Israel
will be
derailed.
Russia's protective measures for the Donbass, as well as its
incorporation by referendum of Crimea, the latter prized by the
resurgent Khazarian Jewish nationalists, threaten the
transformation of Ukraine into a second homeland for Ashkenazi
Jews who are finding their hold on Israel prime tenuous, at best."
The Russian economy is based on the ruble, not the dollar.
Therefore, at purchasing power parity, IMF data, 2017 USD
1 PRC 23208
2 USA 19485
3 India 9474
4 Japan 5443
5 Germany 4199
6 Russia 4016
7 Indonesia 3250
8 Brazil 3247
9 United Kingdom 2925 As a result, the growth of the US economy
by 3% is 600 mln. dollars., and debt 1,2trl. dale so what is
growing in an economy like the US?
When I am in Australia, my weekly shopping for food costs me
US$150. In Ukraine or Russia, it is more like US$40. That suggests
that the GDP figures above should be multiplied by 3-5.
I want to remind you of Bill Barr's speech to the Federalist Society a week ago. He made a
specific point about the plot to sabotage
Donald Trump's Presidency :
Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The
Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver
available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language
used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed
incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means
is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done
in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means
necessary, a duly elected government.
I believe that Bill Barr intentionally signaled that the sedition by the intelligence
community, the FBI and the Department of Justice will not be allowed to slide. But he is going
to do everything to punish them according to the law. He is committed to a rule of law and
enforcing the laws of this country.
In the late 1990s, Durham was tapped by Bill Clinton's justice department to investigate
Boston police and FBI agents' connections with infamous gangster James "Whitey" Bulger. That
investigation ultimately identified corrupt law enforcement officials who had given the killer
information he then used to kill informants and eventually became a part of the case that led
to Bulger's conviction.
Durham's investigation implicated Robert Mueller. According to knowledgeable sources, the
Clinton Justice Department would not allow Durham to
bring charges against Mueller :
In the 1980's, while Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant
United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the
acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a
''top-echelon informant.'' Officials of the Massachusetts state police and the Boston Police
Department had long wondered why their investigations of Mr. Bulger were always compromised
before they could gather evidence against him, and they suspected that the F.B.I. was
protecting him.
Law enforcement officials also have said they wondered why the United States attorney's
office seemed to give Mr. Bulger impunity. But hearings by United States District Judge Mark
Wolf in 1998 found that Mr. Connolly had not told his bosses in the United States attorney's
office about his work with Mr. Bulger. In general, Judge Wolf found what he described as a
culture of secrecy in the F.B.I.'s handling of its informants that sometimes subverted the
purpose of the program.
I do not believe that Bill Barr is going to prevent John Durham from following the evidence
and charging those culpable with crimes. I suspect that this fact is weighing heavily on Jim
Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennab, Jim Clapper and others in the FBI, DOJ and intelligence
community. We will know more in a month.
The most important outcome is transparency, where the public gets to see the breadth &
depth of the activities including the collusion with the media to shape the narrative and the
use of Congressional committees to further the narrative.
The public needs to be able to read about the entire plot and all the sub-plots and the
cast of characters with the roles each played.
We need this to be able to comprehend the extent of violence to the rule of law by those
entrusted with enforcement of the law and the operation of the nations' intelligence
agencies.
We can judge when Durham is done if Barr's speech to the Federalist Society was just
rhetorical or if he really meant it.
Yes. Agree. Informing the public about the true scale of the operation would be very helpful.
That's the acid question: What will Barr deliver?
Of course if he does that the propaganda organs will unleash their vitriol on him and
claim he is Trump's bag carrier. It's not gonna change the minds of any NeverTrumper. It's
value will be a record for posterity.
It is worth pondering, what about Trump has got so many of the elites so riled up? After
all he is one of them. Bill & Hillary attended his wedding to Melania. He has been
photographed at parties with Epstein and moved in celebrity social circles. He's been more
zionist than others before him and he's fed the MIC handsomely. He's not reformed the
surveillance state one iota. It remains at least as secretive and powerful as before. He's
allowed multinational US corporations to repatriate overseas profits to buyback stock that
financially rewards the managerial class. He's done nothing that attacks elite interests. Is
it just that he beat them at their own game and their egos are bruised? In his first run for
public office he wins the biggest prize by defeating the Bush dynasty and Senators and
Governors long in Republican Party leadership and then the Most sure thing, the so entitled
Clinton machine.
You see similar smear operations on Tulsi too. At least with her one can argue that she
has never been a club member.
"what about Trump has got so many of the elites so riled up?"
I don't think it's that hard to figure out: he's too orange, he's too much of an outsider,
he broke Hillary's dream.
But the real crime was saying that the US should try to get along with Russia.
If he had never said the word "Russia" or "Putin" they'd still hate him but we'd be on the
level of psychiatrists speculating that Twitter makes you crazy or something. And it would
the the dims and their tame presstitutes saying that without the (powerful) back up of the
deepstate/borg/blob
You can't run much of an impeachment circus on POTUS's choice of hair product, but Russia
Russia Russia, that keeps going. He colluded with Putin; OK we can't prove that but he wasn't
exonerated; he weakened brave little Ukraine in its fight against Putin. That's all they've
got.
I did hear Barr's definition of "The Resistance" and was so happy that someone finally
explained how evil that idea is in our Democratic Republic. I was so sick of those smug
people I have met who proudly proclaim their allegiance to "The Resistance," as if they count
themselves equal to the French Resistance in WWII against the Nazis.
My wish is that any of the "Resistance" who have made their living on tax-funded salaries
are ripped out of those positions and placed in tax-funded prison cells. And this time, I
would like it if they would be properly guarded so that they can't escape their shame and
punishment through what will be judged as suicide.
In fact, I might enjoy it if the Smithsonian's National Zoo would add displays of the
Resistors right next to any sort of display of venomous snakes.
(There, I've vented my frustration about how long this process for justice has taken and
for the hours and hours of Adam Schiff on television screens. I am not usually a bitter
person, but this whole episode has taken its toll on many of us who are just mere citizens
and tax payers.)
Among the questions that Larry's contribution begs here, is whether branches of this
investigative trail lead back to Mueller himself. If we believe Durham will follow it to
Whitey Bulger and Mueller's potential involvement in enabling murder, then why not to Uranium
One, and his role in the approval of the sale, the (non)investigation of the bags of cash
changing hands, the contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the Bill Clinton speech in
Moscow for $500,000.
And if there, then why not to Mueller's role in the lead up, and follow up to 911?
"... She looked to be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd been a victim of. ..."
"... I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be provocateurs. "Gosh." ..."
"... And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he does. ..."
"... Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on. Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a return to normalcy? ..."
"... Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings. ..."
... She seems to live alone, alone with her work. She tried living with her 88 year old mother
three years ago but that did not last. What would the old girl have done with herself in Kiev
with her daughter working all the time?
So, the maman went home to the States. Marie is still employed as a Career Ambassador
(a high rank) in the Foreign Service of of the United States She is currently assigned at
Georgetown U.
That's the first time I've seen "winsome" used with an edge.
I watched her for some time and didn't know what on earth to make of her. She looked to
be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd
been a victim of.
I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the
pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous
diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be
provocateurs. "Gosh."
A very safe pair of hands, is what would be said of both and almost certainly often
is.
I did know what to make of the histrionics just before the recess. They looked false. That
man wasn't really crying. And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my
eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he
does.
EO,
Zelensky did not like her and suggested that she was involved with corrupt people and
undermining the President. I don't understand how Trump gets all of the blame for her being
relieved of her position.
Marie IMO was always the second best looking girl in the class but maybe teacher's pet,
and has never had anyone take anything away from her before. "Gosh." She doesn't look like
someone you could safely make a pass at unless you had an awful lot of rank.
Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on.
Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory
oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a
return to normalcy?
Then again, since when does a Presidential emissary not only criticize him and the
President of her host country, but also instruct local law enforcement on which oligarchs he
may investigate and which oligarch's (admittedly ours) he may not.
Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter
Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue
pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about
Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings.
To take your cue, Ambassador Marie is a secular nun with very bad ideas, who wandered to a
profession she is not at all suited.
"... Senator Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot. ..."
"... "Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website Rare . ..."
"... "Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his previous job," Paul notes in his piece. ..."
"... Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and holding office in the National Security Council. ..."
"... It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join him at the State Department. ..."
Senator
Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State
Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot.
"Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the
president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a
neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website
Rare .
Abrams was intimately tied in with the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, and was even
convicted of withholding information from Congress about covert government activities in
Nicaragua and El Salvador. He was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.
"Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his
previous job," Paul notes in his piece.
Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup
against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and
holding office in the National Security Council.
Senator Paul urges Trump not to appoint Abrams, adding that his "neocon agenda trumps his
fidelity to the rule of law."
Paul points out that during the election, Abrams publicly spoke out against Trump's
intention to withdraw from policing the world.
"He is a loud voice for nation building and when asked about the president's opposition to
nation building, Abrams said that Trump was absolutely wrong; and during the election he was
unequivocal in his opposition to Donald Trump, going so far as to say, 'the chair in which
Washington and Lincoln sat, he is not fit to sit,'" Paul writes.
It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join
him at the State Department.
Paul, a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, hopes Tillerson "will continue the
search for expert assistance from experienced, non-convicted diplomats who understand the
mistakes of the past and the challenges ahead."
The State (War) Department is really the neocons viper nest
Notable quotes:
"... Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold. They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public this week. ..."
"... Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth. ..."
Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These
people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving
in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a
foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold.
They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just
say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public
this week.
Straight fire out of Peter Van Buren. The State is the "The Blob." They're the ones who
want to promote a policy of interventionism and nation-building. The military actually
prefers to stay out of wars and don't want to pursue nation-building.
Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or
Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire
consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military
is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the
invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth.
Just as important, where is the proof the Russians hacked the DNC computers (hat tip always
to LJ) - since Roger Stone was banned from getting this information by the judge who just
sent him away for life.
CROWDSTRIKE's role in the Democrat impeachment smokescreen needs to keep moving forward
because, it is not going away. Democrats refusal to even mention it, let alone their
obsession trying to relentless label nameless CROWDSTRIKE as a loony, right wing conspiracy
theory simply does not pass the smell test.
Particularly since Schiff does his very best to deep six even mention of Trump's requested
Ukraine CROWDSTRIKE investigation. https://illicitinfo.com/?p=13576
Deep state CROWDSTRIKE collusion is starting to walk like a duck, quack like a duck and
look like a duck.
My bet is that the impeachment circus was started by those Dems who want to get rid of Biden.
So they start a circus where Biden's corruption case is a major issue. Moreover, this forces
Trump to open the evidence against Biden already during the impeachment process, and not only
after Biden winning the primaries.
Great analysis as usual. My comment is on your last line:
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
This is not necessarily about bringing Trump down via impeachment because though almost
certain to be impeached, he is almost as certain to be acquited in the Senate where a 2/3
majority is needed and even if some GOP Senators vote for conviction joining all Dem
Senators, reaching 67 is a tall order.
What then is all this about? It's obviously about the 2020 election and not just the
Presidency but the House and the 35 Senate seats (23 GOP and 12 Dem) up for grabs. This is
for all the marbles. The Dems/anti-Trump GOP have a formidable base made up of the powerful
coastal elites, establishment media and as importantly the so-called deep state in DC, the
bureaucrats in the State Dept/CIA/FBI/DOJ and the courts to back them. The Dems are
struggling to unify against a theme but the impeachment is one thing that's a clear litmus
test and what they will rally around in 2020.
That Trump will be impeached is a near certainty as much as that his conviction in the
Senate will fail. Look for:
- How many Dem Reps vote for impeachment or if those in GOP states flip.
- If any GOP Reps flip to impeachment.
- If any GOP Senators support conviction (almost certainly there are 4 including Mitt
Romney)
Meanwhile the GOP has tricks of its own and the upcoming FISA report due Dec 9 which
apparently will in-effect accuse the Obama admin of 2016 election meddling will be taken up
in the GOP controlled Senate.
Both these dramas will serve as the backdrop for the countdown to the 2020 election in
less than 12 months on Nov 3, 2020.
"... Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $ flowing. ..."
Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is
to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the
US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $
flowing.
Confrontation is much more profitable than peace...
I included the following to make clear what is the above link is about..
@ Circe It would be a fair assumption that nothing on the internet is what it appears. When
it matters, it is controlled. Internet like media is source of information and manipulation.
One cannot rely on any single source. Everyone is lying much of the time. by: jared @ 55
Weapons of mass deception (WMDs)
Wireless weapons of mind control (WWMC_.
You will know when your government has begun to move in response to those that it governs
when it:==>
1. quits spying on you
2. makes infecting UR computer with spyware, malware, and viri not only criminally illegal
with 10 years automatic no early time release jail time but also makes actionable as a tort,
victim recovery from the perpetrator Jury trials to establish damages.
3. amends the constitution to make it a life time in jail offence to conduct the affairs of
government in secret or to classify any document as secret from anyone who is a citizen of
America and is also a citizen of the Untied States of America.
4. has a budget for domestic needs at least 4x the size of the armament budget.
5. transitions power generation from grid to place of use and transitions from fossil fuel,
nuclear fuel to solar and wind energy
6. gives free education and medical services at the highest level to all comers without
regard to prior qualification.
7. recognizes all people of all race and all religion as one in the same person
8. puts news fakers and propagandist under the jail
9. admits pearl harbor, 9/11 and
10. allows the masses to determine not only the candidates for offices in the USA but also
allows the masses to determine which candidate will serve the USA
11. allows any member of the governed masses to indite any sitting member of a government at
any level, in the independent of the civil government, court of human rights, and allows that
court of human rights to immediately remove the accused person from his or her position in
government until a verdict can be rendered, and if that verdict is guilty, allows to and
assist with enforcing the penalty assessed by the the human rights court for the human rights
violation while in office or as a result of the power of the office.
12. makes it illegal to be a member of government at any level if that persons holds any
citizenship but American and USA.
Just watching "the hate Russia circus" on MSM. If DJT wasn't such a greedy MF, this circus
wouldn't be going on.
Let's be clear, Russia, and every other nation on earth, has the absolute right to defend
itself, and it's people,
from being exploited by the U$A's corporate empire. The empire's record over time is
clear, if it wants something you have, they'll take it.
DJT has no problem following the empire's dictates, but when he deviates and pursues his
own personal enrichment at the expense of the empire's overall goals, things like the D.C.
circus ensues.
I'll say this again, Russia, and all countries on earth have the RIGHT to defend
themselves from our latest empires attacks, no matter in what form they appear..
Great parallel to Dems saying that the Ukrainian border is of vital importance for our
national security, yet they also say that our own border is not.
"... According to Deep State Bill Nye, the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine including Crimea and Donbas has been the goal of US foreign policy for 75 years" Crimea didn't begin that period as part of Ukraine though...are you saying the State Department convinced Stalin to transfer it to the Ukrainian SSR? ..."
You know that saying, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world
he didn't exist." The Democratic Party have been doing their best to keep his existence from
the American people. But they can only hold him back for so long before he shows his face and
only a face a mother can love. And that face is Adam Schiff or I like to call him Mr. Mackey,
m'kay!
According to Deep State Bill Nye, the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine including Crimea
and Donbas has been the goal of US foreign policy for 75 years" Crimea didn't begin that
period as part of Ukraine though...are you saying the State Department convinced Stalin to
transfer it to the Ukrainian SSR?
The farting dems pretend to be scared of Russia, so how many of the illegal people that
they bring into our nation from the southern border that are murderers, rapists, drug
dealers, thieves, etc. are Russians ? Christians love Russian people, dems are filled with
hatred, they are Russiaphobes !
enderer-text" role="article"> When you take the red envelope from the fed and the
globalists, you must dance to their tunes. Schiff dances as if his and the lives of his loved
ones is at stake!! Russia has borders with China, the middle east etc. How many lost lives
from that war, a war that has always lit up the eyes of the white house and the EU until
Trump Governments no longer care about the lives of citizens, its all about the benjamins
people but NOT YOURS!
Both sides of my family came here from Russia in the early 1900's. My entire life Russia
has been the big scary enemy (which was difficult going to school and putting up with fear
and hatred for Russia). Anyway...I'm tired of it..
Great parallel to Dems saying that the Ukrainian border is of vital importance for our
national security, yet they also say that our own border is not.
The aristocratic morons in the Sate Department are totally appalled that Trump wants to
actually scrutinize problems and fix them using common sense, thereby disrupting their cushy,
do-nothing diplomatic corps jobs and lives.
The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid
opening statement from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was
involved in diplomatic efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let
it all out :
Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the pressure
campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link between
military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland confirmed there was
a "clear quid pro quo" for a White House meeting between President Trump and Ukraine's
president.
The anti-Trump media see
this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.
But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those
involved on his side.
The President of the United States thought it to be in the interest of the United States
to press Ukraine's government into publicly announcing investigations into two issues:
The
evident intervention by then Vice President Biden into Ukrainian politics to the
benefit of the owner of a company that paid his son more than $50,000 per month.
Sondland and other U.S. officials were negotiating with the Ukrainians about these
demands. There were two potential points that they could use to pressure the Ukrainians into
announcing investigations:
The Ukrainian request for a visit by President Zelensky to the White House.
The Ukrainian desire to receive military aid that Congress had allocated for that
purpose.
It is not clear at all that Trump wanted those issues to be used to pressure Ukraine.
Trump never told Sondland that these issues were connected:
Posted by b at 20:08
UTC |
Comments (105) b- I suspect the reason the Dems have thrown themselves into this
impeachment circus is because they knew this investigation was in the works and possibly
others as well:www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian
I shortened the link, if anyone has a problem with it please refer to zerohedge.com
This Ukraine investigation will take down Biden, Hunter, Kerry, Kerry's stepson and probably
Pelosi and her son. Although their scam is via a different Ukraine energy company. The link
mentions several other people from the Obama admin, Obama himself may be at the bottom of
this well.
From Jim Stone:
"The CEO of Burisma in Ukraine was arrested. He started talking. As it turns out, Biden's
kid, Hunter, was not getting paid $50, 000 a month, his base salary was closer to $200, 000 a
month, and now that someone is talking, Hunter received several payments "in the millions"
totaling $16.5million OUTSIDE of his regular pay.
Here is a quote from the original source at CD media
"In our extensive discussions with Onyshchenko, CD Media can report that he confirmed
Hunter Biden took 'off the books' payments totally millions from Burisma.
"There were 'official' and 'unofficial' payments to the Biden family, " Onyshchenko
stated.
Onyshchenko also confirmed that former FBI agent Karen Greenaway, who oversaw the Obama
administration's anti-corruption efforts in Eastern Europe, directed the coverup of the Biden
scandal at the time, in concert with the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, and other Deep State American
government assets 'in-country'.
In Onyshchenko's former oversight role over Ukrainian energy security, he was in a unique
position to acquire information on Burisma and their dealings with the Biden family.
My comment: The impeachment hearing is not going well. They keep chugging along with
absolute blowouts that should end their trip down the road to lunacy, but keep on going like
criminal nut cases that have nothing to lose, hoping the cops never catch up despite all the
flat tires, among which this report was a serious one. It is shocking that this report
relates directly to one of their guys they have in the race against Trump. It does not seem
to matter to them at all if they get revealed time after time after time for what they are,
it is becoming evident that the only thing that will stop them in their impeachment efforts
is a long overdue arrest."
And recall Guliani said that Romania and China pay to play deals are far worse than what
happened in Ukraine
In a riff on the D's line of questioning, they're trying to carry out their end of a quid pro
quo with their sponsors in the MIC. That idea came as a result of comments made during the
Keiser
Report I linked to on the open thread, that the D-Party is the War Party doing the
MIC's bidding against Trump's move from being militantly Geopolitical to wanting to resume
being the dominant Geoeconomic power the Evil Outlaw US Empire was once. As I suggested
earlier, listen twice to the entire show.
IMO, the change in direction/emphasis on what needs to be the basis of the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's power is what's driving the schism between the factions in the Current Oligarchy and
thus the Duopoly. One can also see the rationale for Gabbard and Sanders's political-economic
positions in
the materials I've linked to that justify my line of reasoning.
Why has Trump done the stupid things that have contributed to Russiagate and
Ukrainegate?
Russiagate
'America First' Trump hired Manafort as campaign manager of his 2016 Presidential election -
despite Manafort having been working in Ukraine for many years (thus having little, if
any, recent experience with US politics) , and despite Manafort's having been warned (by
people that were likely connected to CIA) that Manafort's political work for pro-Russia
parties was not appreciated.
Aside: IMO Deep State wanted to settle scores with Manafort, Flynn, and
Assange.
Ukrainegate
Trump made an issue of Biden on the phone call with Zelinsky. The fact that Trump sought no
quid pro quo is irrelevant. It's Trump's inadvisable mentioning of Biden that got
Ukrainegate started.
Lastly, in the Spring, Pelosi and Hillary had both come out strongly against impeachment
hearings, saying that an election was near and impeachment would be counter-productive. But
they both support impeachment hearings now - over the nonsensical Ukrainegate allegations
that lead nowhere except to a Democratic loss in 2020 after these 'witch hunt' hearings.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Kayfabe
It's Deep State orchestrated kayfabe. USA hates whistle-blowers. They don't get the benefit
of the doubt, like this one has.
Trump - Biden conflict helps Biden to get elected, just as Hillary's attack on Tulsi has
helped to keep Tulsi in the race. This "meddling" is consistent with previous political
manipulations:
In December 2018, Trump invites Pelosi to the White House to discuss his "Wall" - which
helps her to get elected Speaker of the House.
In 2016 Sanders is Hillary's sheep-dog and Hillary makes crucial mistakes that lead to
Trump's election (and the start of Russiagate's neo-McCarthyism).
"... I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop the fagot pile. ..."
You don't get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the
whistleblower's complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment
arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.
I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the
whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it
does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
viz.
"ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure"
In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for
those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be
independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better
that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.
On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC's authority to change the
scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower
legislation / directives?
You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the
whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version
allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else
(hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe
that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said
"I'm a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information" to a DNI employee,
that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me,
that's wrong.
Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the
authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence.
While I agree that Trump's phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent
matter that can be reported to Congress, what's worse is that because the President's
activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the
authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no
authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed
the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only
problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no
authority under this law to investigate the President's activities under this statute. The
complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.
Never forget this particular "whistleblower" statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly
allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the
penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get 'em FBI.
Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse
to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never
was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing
false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only
if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony)
to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn
it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints
about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the
airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time
to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an
excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous
response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment,
perhaps a stay at Epstein's prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable
Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here,
will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies
enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic
example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop
the fagot pile.
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI
investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste
of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far
too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake
malware" troubles? Beyond, that I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was
distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware
breach at all, simply an insider copying files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to
give 'resilience' to their cover-up strategies, they could have organised a planting of
evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an
actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it
easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about
the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty
Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in
response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the remarks by Ms.
Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of
Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental
Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant
'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48.
Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory
reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.'
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that
what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced as a contingency plan to ensure that if it
becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original form, his
laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard
drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout
the former Soviet Union is very high.
Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims'
site is back up online.
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think
that, while it is very helpful to have some key material available in a single place, it
would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate
transcript was made of the conversation with Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly
recorded.
What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions, and that
the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the
former.
That said, the fact that Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's
FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not justify the conclusion that
he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack
Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given
accurate information.
Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes were not hopelessly blinded by
prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that,
in this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time
to time, fall for disinformation. (If anyone says they can always spot when they are being
played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but it is more likely
that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or
a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's
involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified
as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show
it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the
"Russian" conclusion instead.Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or
independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his
Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and
harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and
unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Meuller team that
conspired to reach this Russian conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's
evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking
conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link.
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -Crowsdtrike player links and
loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more
information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't
already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
At the same time it was probably pre-emptive strike against Barr investigation (especially
Crowstryke portion of it) and newly acquired election strategy.
'UkraineGate' is potentially deathly to the Dems, so all / any issues are brandished..
I posted long ago. 2009. Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's son) form an
International Private Equity firm, Rosemont Seneca. Devon Archer was the 'managing
partner.'
I wrote it was perhaps ? money laundering (as gas. cos don't have those kinds of sums on
hand .. to bribe .. for what?) I didn't know about Paul Pelosi at the time.
This is pure speculation, but it is beginning to look like the Obama Régime
was engaged in financial transfers a coy way of putting it - ex. Aid to Ukraine
(Russia 3x!) which was partly kicked back, through fronts like Burisma, to those who
organised the aid in the first place! -- Care of the US taxpayer of course.
The IMF was involved as well (in some role.. ?) Obiman delegated all that to Joe Biden and
pretended to ignore it, imho he knew but distanced himself.
To the point. The blared MSM and social media discourse of Intl. Geo-politics was: Ukraine
to join the EU, NATO, evil enemy Russia, a new age, are cover-ups and distractions for
Mafia-style Mega-Finance World Moves, run by a narrow clique of 'Capos.'
Following on (again, speculation ++, one angle only..), Yanukovitch for ex. was not
dislodged by "Maidan," a hapless victim of illegit-agit-prop, the usual régime-change
actions instigated by the US, supposedly successful in this case, but fell foul of some
corrupt plans/ppl, as he himself was corrupt. Ex. The story about how he suddenly realised
that 'joining the EU' would be detrimental to Ukr. and he needed to keep ties with Russia was
total BS right from day one.
@76 I was just going to post a link to Solomon's Ukrainian Timeline. It's an outstanding
piece filled with supporting documents that helps to bring greater focus to Ukraine and the
Obama team. Bookmark it.
As for the line in b's post that 'Trump is a crook' is baseless innuendo. Did he swim in a
pool of crooks and sharks while cutting real estate deals in dirty NYC and NJ? Of course he
did. Only through such association can one tag him with being a 'crook' yet neither he nor
his businesses have had any criminal charges brought forward during decades of doing
business.
Also according to the Dem's own focus group data, Dem's aren't buying into their Party's
impeachment circus - "Almost nobody in the groups said they are intentionally following
impeachment news. Several are avoiding it. There was a great deal of ambivalence about
impeachment and apparently more support for dropping it than pursuing it. The proceeding is
seen [as] a dominating the Democrats' agenda. At least one person in each group could clearly
articulate the charge against Trump and Ukraine. No one thought the charges were related to
Russia...So, the question in their minds was whether the significance of this rises to the
level of impeachment and whether this process will dominate the government's work. The
inherent sense of corruption of all politicians allowed space for many to believe that what
Trump did was commonplace, and ultimately several were ready to let Trump off the proverbial
hook by characterizing the charges as "politics" without digging deeper to determine [if] of
the charges were impeachable or not. Few called it a crime although some mentioned he abused
his power."
So, if conservatives/republicans/independents and now democrats aren't buying into the
fable then what's it really all about? This new info on Templeton, the DNC and the Atlantic
Council has a lot to do with answering the why. Just like the roll out of RussiaGate, time
will tell. Then, we had no idea how abused the entirety of the FISA system was. We have some
facts at hand such as Collyer and Boasberg's reports, however, Horowitz's pending report is
said to fill in the gaps. I'm hopeful the same process will unfold around
Ukraine/Burisma/Bidens/Obama/Soros/The Atlantic Council/State and many more. The sun is only
just now rising...
Aaron
Mate's thread notes the long public acknowledgement of Ukrainian meddling:
"Ukrainian officials bragged about it in August 2016 {link at original] & then came to
regret it after Trump won [link at original] It's fine if you reject Trump's Crowdstrike
theory, but to deny Ukrainian meddling is to deny a documented fact."
Mate notes furthermore:
"What's also funny is that Ukraine's meddling is similar to what Russia is accused of:
releasing dos [sic] that expose corruption in a presidential campaign. Ukraine's docs alleged
that Manafort received secret payments. Russia is often accused of an 'act of war.' How about
Ukraine?"
As I opined upthread, this circus is all about getting Warren the POTUS nomination, but
this article notes she must be seen as radioactive despite her
continuing attempts to portray herself as a frontstage populist, using the Clinton gambit
of telling her Big Donors it's all an act behind closed doors.
Rather than being amazed an appalled at behavior of the would be empire -
we chose sides and join the fray.
Consider that in the U.S. we (pretty much) literally have only two choices to select from
for any elected position and
in many cases one of those choices is certain to fail (run as a formality). This is
"democracy".
The "nation" is now overtly criminal on the international stage and this is now accepted
behavior.
Hang on. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly the Ukraine managed to influence the US
presidential campaign.
Wasn't it Russia? That's what we've all been told, left right and centre, without a shred
of evidence. Unless you uncritically believe Adam Schiff... or Fraudbook...
Now, what, it was Zelenski? Not Porky Poroshenko? Or Arseniy Yatsenyuik? Or Igor
Koloimenski? Or Arseniy Avekov?
Whose money do you wish to believe?
pogohere , Nov 21 2019 18:42 utc |
86c1ue , Nov 21 2019 18:52 utc |
87
@Ant #84
The oligarch most known for pouring money into US politicians is Victor Pinchuk.
He's put money into the Clinton Global Initiative, paid for both Clintons' to speechify,
supports Brookings and the Atlantic Council, has a full time registered lobbyist in
Washington, etc.
"A former top White House Russia expert testified Thursday that the 'fictional narrative'
embraced by President Donald Trump that Ukraine meddled in the US elections was fabricated by
Russia to wreak havoc in US politics."
So reports one of NATO's BigLie Media outlets. FYI, as I wrote in 2016, no outside nation
needs to "wreak havoc in US politics" as there're numerous home grown domestic sources
already doing that in an ongoing manner since the 1850s. Isn't it a felony to lie to
Congress?
Hill, in advanced testimony Thursday, warned lawmakers against believing a "fictional
narrative" that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election.
"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian
security services themselves," Hill said in prepared remarks.
"The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked
our democratic institutions in 2016 . This is the public conclusion of our intelligence
agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some
of the underlying details must remain classified."
Hill emphasized that she is a nonpartisan foreign policy expert, who has served under three
different Republican and Democratic presidents and that she has "no interest in advancing the
outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction, except toward the truth."
She warned that U.S. national security has been harmed by the politicization of support for
Ukraine.
"The Russian government's goal is to weaken our country -- to diminish America's global
role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests," she said.
"President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy
objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and
economic dominance."
Hill added, "I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional
responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my
ability. I f the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the
United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than
worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending
ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm."
Holmes testified behind closed doors earlier this month that he heard U.S. Ambassador to the
European Union Gordon Sondland telling President Trump over a phone conversation that Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky "loves your ass."
As an open-minded, astute observer, I'd say the Dems already had their impeachment
narrative in place before the hearings, then used the hearings to build supportive evidence
of conjecture, hearsay and supposition to come to their "guilty" conclusion.
What happens when 90% of the media is controlled/owned by (6) corporations?
What happens when those same corporations are operated and controlled by a political
ideology?
What happens when the news is no longer free from bias?
What happens when the news is no longer reliable and independent?
What happens when the news is no longer trustworthy?
What happens when the news simply becomes an extension/arm of a political party?
Fact becomes fiction?
Fiction becomes fact?
When does news become propaganda?
Identity creation?
How does the average person, who is under constant financial stress (by design), find time to
research and discern fact v fiction?
Majority of people more prone to believe someone in power sitting behind a big brand 'news'
name?
Do people [human psyche] tend to follow the 'majority/mainstream viewpoint' in fear of being
isolated and/or shunned?
'Mainstream' is used for a reason [dominate trend in opinion] .
[If majority of people believe 'x' then 'x' must be validated / true]
Why do 'mainstream' media heads, within different orgs, always use the same keywords and/or
catch phrases?
Coordinated? By who? Outside entity providing instructions?
Do they count on the fact that people [human psyche] are more prone to believe something if
heard over-and-over again by different 'trusted' sources?
Do 'echo chamber' tactics provide validation / credibility to the topic/point being
discussed?
Threat to intellectual freedom?
Would control over [of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a
populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Read again – digest.
Would control over [of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a
populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Logical thinking.
Why, after the election of 2016, did [D] 's and media corps jumpstart a [coordinated &
planned] divisive blitz intended to create falsehoods re: illegitimacy of election, character
assassination of POTUS through sexism, racism, every other 'ism'?
Pre/post 2016 election?
Why were violent [masked] terror orgs such as Antifa immediately created/funded?
Why were these orgs tasked w/ immediate intimidation/shut down of any pro-POTUS rally [s]
and/or events?
Why were marches immediately organized to counter and silence pro-POTUS rally [s] and/or
events?
Why were marches immediately organized which divided people into sex/gender, race, [ism]
?
When you control the levers of news dissemination, you control the narrative.
Control of the narrative = power
When you are blind, what do you see?
They want you divided.
Divided by religion.
Divided by sex.
Divided by political affiliation.
Divided by class.
When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not
those responsible [controllers] .
Divided you are weak.
Divided you pose no threat to their control.
When 'non-dogmatic' information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those
who attempt to control the narrative and/or stable [livestock kept – sheep] .
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable ('group-think' collective), and
have 'free thought'.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should
be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition,
revelation, or dogma.
Q
Money quote: "I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill
of beans in The Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then
mountains of BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public
buying into the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers. "
"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 ,
[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency
Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978
, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence
agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving
intelligence activities.
Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a
complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the
complaint or information to their agency's inspector general or the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine
"whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be
credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires
the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional
intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within
seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not
transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information
directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first
inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must
follow the procedures specified in the Act.
The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:
[2]
a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order , or
deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity
involving classified
information , but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy
matters;
A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of
material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence
activity; or
An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's
reporting an urgent concern.
ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure.
[3] In 2006 Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense ,
stated before the House Committee on
Government Reform that the ICWPA is a ' misnomer ' and that more properly the Act protects
the communication of classified information to Congress .
[4] According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice , the
ICWPA, "provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which
means that there is no right at all."
[3]
According to the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence , from 1999-2009, 10 complaints/disclosures were filed under this
law, four of which were found to be credible by the relevant Inspector General. In three of
these ten cases the whistleblower claimed that s/he was retaliated against: two CIA cases and one
DOJ case. Subsequent
investigations by the CIA and DOJ failed to find evidence of retaliation in any of these cases.
[3]
[5]
This law provides an intelligence official with a legal means within which to report
misdeeds in the world of intelligence operation, funding, etc. It has nothing to do with
government activities that are not intelligence activities. There was nothing in the now famous
25 July call between Trump and Zelensky that was intelligence business. None. Remember - the
two presidents ARE NOT intelligence officials.
IMO the complaint was and is invalid and should not have been entertained at all by the IC
IG. The original opinion by DoJ on this matter was correct. pl
Jack ,
Sir,
The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch
the impeachment inquiry, they're quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote.
And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including
serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will
either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can't
see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party
can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry.
This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would
love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and
electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain't happening in my life time as
most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
prawnik ,
The law doesn't matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More's famous formulation
of the law in "A Man for All Seasons". The laws of England or any other law are of no
protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that
is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action
regardless of what is written.
Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.
K -> prawnik... ,
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More
reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population
that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all--in that society you
empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or
bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe
the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and
growing bolder.
Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.
Factotum ,
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI
investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste
of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far
too much.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill of beans in The
Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of
BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into
the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
Members of the "in crowd" can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them
ever faces consequences it's because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to
the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more
ambitious usurper.
The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from
the deep state went to Clinton, trump's election created and existential crisis.
Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state - look at his major2016
campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only
response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state
inflicted chaos.
Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax
dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state
doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm
troopers.
Is that all you got? Smearing witnesses? Witnesses who happen to be offering sworn
testimony that nobody really is contesting. (Although, you know, the three amigos, Rudi,
etc could testify if they wanted to and rebut). In the meantime Lt. Col.
Vindman is now under 24-hour protection from the Army.
Careerists there (Vindman, Yovanovitch) and folks with little-to-no experience (Sondland
-- who, btw, was praised to the high heavens by Trump last month) are all saying the same
thing. And, really, as a veteran of State, surely you must agree that Rudi Giuliani
shouldn't have been inter-meddling (did i mention he's under FBI investigation and his two
side-kick cronies were indicted?).
This is corrupt mess through and through. Anybody who cares about even moderately clean
government should be appalled.
Rep. David Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, questioned Lt.
Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works for the National Security Council, and
Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as
part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
In his line of questioning, Nunes attempted to glean more information that House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff said could lead to revealing the identity of
the whistleblower. Vindman told Nunes that his counsel suggested that he not answer questions
or "provide specifics" about members of the intelligence community. Vindman's counsel spoke up
saying he was following the rules set by Schiff and the committee.
Schiff interjected during Nunes' questioning to say, "These proceedings will not be used to
out the whistleblower." Vindman and Williams both listened in on a July phone call in which
Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential
candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
They just confirmed that the other person he spoke with was the "whistleblower" and that
Schiff lied when he said he doesn't know who the "whistleblower" is. Why else would Schiff
stop the questioning when he asked who the other individual is and said that he is trying to
out the "whistleblower". Also if Schiff didn't know who the "whistleblower" is then why would
he stop the questioning claiming that it is meant to out the "whistleblower"?
I'm surprised anyone would believe this guy because he has "YES MAN" all over his face! He
would do or say anything to get ahead ! A WEASEL, ROSENBRUG IS ONE, along with SCHIFF. Easily
lead to do anything to please if they let him do what he loves to do. CAN BE LEAD BY THE NOSE
KIND OF PERSON! SICKENING!
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. questioned Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works
for the National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence,
on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Vindman and Williams both listened in on a July phone call in which Trump asked the president
of Ukraine to investigate former vice president
What I do not understand is what will DemoRats get if Senate starts the trial.
Notable quotes:
"... "The Democrats waited for better timing of blowing the allegations it came when Zelenskiy visited Washington and blew it in UN plus, met Trump. ..."
"... "Danilyuk was present at the Zelinskiy + Trump conversation, he told about the matters of the conversation to Alexander Vindman. Zelinskiy administration fired Danilyuk but is not able to fire Vindman." ..."
"... The article continues with info on Schiff's staffers meeting in Ukraine, it has the agenda, who attended, etc. There are other related articles too, worth review IMO. ..."
"... It was not clear to the negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?". ..."
"... According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing." ..."
"... That Gordon Sondland and his fellow negotiators were flabbergasted that Trump did not tie money for military weapons to the Biden revelations, and that Sondland himself made the assumption that Trump would make the aid money conditional on what Ukraine could provide, might tell us more about the huckster mindset that prevails among the Washington political and bureaucratic elite than it does about Trump's own worldview and psycholoical make-up. Trump may be obsessed with making the Deal of the Century but the people surrounding him in the White House are obsessed with extracting as much blood out of a stone as they can. ..."
"... Regarding the possibility of a Senate trail, just look at the two major papers. They are pushing impeachment with all they have, including awarding sainthood to some who do not deserve it, e.g. Vindman. If the Beltway echo chamber has the desired affect, Shiff will keep things going. ..."
"... This is from Saint Marie's statement: ..."
"... "Supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. If Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts by Russia to expand its territory and influence." ..."
"... In other words, trotting out the old Dominoes Theory, first it will be Ukraine, then Belarus, Poland, the Baltics. Oh the horror! ..."
"... The impeachment hearings will never touch the basic underlying fact that Obama/Biden Administration restarted the Cold War by supporting the Maidan Coup and greenlighting the seizing of the ethnic Russian Donbass region. The trench warfare there continues to this day. ..."
"... The only conclusion is that the hatred between globalist oligarchs and nationalists is so deep and powerful that the consequences of a World War are ignored. The 2020 election is pointless. The Republic is dead. The Empire shutters from internal conflict. If the Battle of Carrhae replays once again, the war with Iran will force any survivors to retreat from the Middle East. ..."
"... Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $ flowing. ..."
This article is really helpful. https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/04
Again I have shortened the link, the article states: "Intelligence sources in Kyiv have
informed CD Media that the 'witness' narrative of LT COL Alexander Vindman was created by
corrupt U.S. State Department officials in Kyiv, Ukraine.
According to our sources, "Alexander Vindman [recent witness in favor of Trump
impeachment], Gordon Sondland [US ambassador to the EU and Trump supporter] and Oleksandr
Danilyuk [Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine from late May
until 30 September 2019 before being fired] had a meeting in July 2019. Sondland asked
Danilyuk as head of National Security Bureau of Ukraine to investigate Biden, Burisma, and
Manafort related investigations.
Apparently, Sondland didnt know that Danilyuk is Soros' agent and supplies info to
Democrats. This was the second leak to the Deep State.
The first leak was made by Danilyuk because he was the only person in the room with fluent
English when Zelenskiy and Trump had a phone call conversation. Zelenskiy speaks English on
very intermediate level, loses the context and emotional sense also, Yermak Andrei, the 2d
Advisor to Zelenskiy is, allegedly, on the hook of FSB. Thus, it was Danilyuk who passed
information to the Deep State to attack Trump.
"The Democrats waited for better timing of blowing the allegations it came when
Zelenskiy visited Washington and blew it in UN plus, met Trump.
"Danilyuk was present at the Zelinskiy + Trump conversation, he told about the matters
of the conversation to Alexander Vindman. Zelinskiy administration fired Danilyuk but is not
able to fire Vindman."
The article continues with info on Schiff's staffers meeting in Ukraine, it has the
agenda, who attended, etc. There are other related articles too, worth review IMO.
(1) b is not being clear that Sondland drew a definite line between the White House
meeting and the stalled military aid, in terms of how he thought they were linked to Zelensky
making the desired announcement of investigations: While Sondland said he merely "presumed"
the linkage to the military aid, he asserts the linkage to the White House meeting was made
explicit to him (albeit via Giuliani).
(2) The "well documented Ukraininan interference" that actually occurred (ostensible dirt
on Manafort) bears only a vague relationship to what has lodged in Trump's shriveled lima
bean brain (the DNC server spirited away to Kiev). Of course, since neither the Dems nor the
Repubs are interested in noting this fact, it will be ignored.
thanks b.... the way i see it, usa and everyone loses in the present set up.. you can't get
down and grovel in the swamp with the usa or ukraine, as youre going to get a lot of mud on
you and some of it is going to stick.. the info that comes out of the dynamic between these 2
countries is toxic, no matter which way you look... of course dems naively think they are
going to use it to get rid of trump, but they are dredging up some toxic stuff with a lot of
their own ckeletons in the closet... they are hoping none of it comes out and the focus
remains on - as @5 jackrabbit notes - trump mentioning biden and how this is not allowed.. i
can't see them gaining from this myself as the whole thing is a political theatre where we
mostly know the final outcome... and, it's not just the ammo that trump can throw out here,
but the accidental info such as what @1/2 frances points to as well... lots of ugliness can
come out of this that is going to stick on everyone...
@3 taffyboy.. that is old footage repackaged in a new link... thanks anyway.. it is fairly
clear though and something that the dems think others are going to miss or something.. i
don't get that part.. the dems want to keep the focus on how trump was going after a 2020
rival but i think once anyone starts looking at this, they are going to see a lot more then
they want to see.. mind you, maybe the usa media will be successful in guiding the narrative
for the war party which on some level seem unhappy with trump.. i don't know that it is
eroding trumps fan base though.. maybe.. but as b says - trump is a crook.. everyone knew
this before he got in power.. however, he has slowed down the military agenda some relative
to obama, which is really ironic.. i think it is because trump doesn't profit off the
military industrial complex as he does other stuff.. either way they are all first class
kleptomaniacs all vying for the front of the trough...
The negotiations around the Ukraine issues were going slow. It was not clear to the
negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump
and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?".
According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no
quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing."
Trump is a crook. It is fair to presume that he wanted his aides to use all potential
pressure points to deliver the desired results from the Ukrainians. But Trump is also a
smart enough crook to never say that.
Is it possible that, just for once, Trump really did want nothing from Zelensky other than
to find out what Joe Biden stood to gain from pressuring the Ukrainians to sack Viktor Shokin
as Prosecutor General and what Hunter Biden's role as Board Director of a shell energy
company in Ukraine really amounted to?
That Gordon Sondland and his fellow negotiators were flabbergasted that Trump did not
tie money for military weapons to the Biden revelations, and that Sondland himself made the
assumption that Trump would make the aid money conditional on what Ukraine could provide,
might tell us more about the huckster mindset that prevails among the Washington political
and bureaucratic elite than it does about Trump's own worldview and psycholoical make-up.
Trump may be obsessed with making the Deal of the Century but the people surrounding him in
the White House are obsessed with extracting as much blood out of a stone as they
can.
If this ever gets to the Senate, a full trial will result, which will cause who knows how
many skeletons fall out of various Democrat/"Resistance" closets.
What do you think the odds are that, just somehow, nothing goes to the Senate in the
end?
>Nothing goes to Senate, I bet, but also no indictments from Barr.
> How's that for a quid pro quo?
> Posted by: casey | Nov 20 2019 21:54 utc | 13
For a kleptocracy, that almost sounds like a reasonable resolution, so no, that can not be
allowed. Trump is not being a team player, plus the retreat from northern Syria under fire
from potatoes was an unforgivable humiliation. Someone must pay for that, even if it brings
down the whole rotten house, a real possibility. Trump has how many millions of Twitter
followers? If he ever calls them out to the street, even if only 1% respond, and they show up
with guns...
Trump is unpredictable and dangerous. How does one disarm a drunk with a gun at a party?
Very, very carefully. But brain-dead big-dick Dear Leaders don't do carefully. It's Obey Or
Regarding the possibility of a Senate trail, just look at the two major papers. They are
pushing impeachment with all they have, including awarding sainthood to some who do not
deserve it, e.g. Vindman. If the Beltway echo chamber has the desired affect, Shiff will keep
things going.
This is from Saint Marie's statement:
"Supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. If
Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts
by Russia to expand its territory and influence."
In other words, trotting out the old Dominoes Theory, first it will be Ukraine, then
Belarus, Poland, the Baltics. Oh the horror!
Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report is always on the money
'https://www.blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-ukrainegate-farce
She explains that "The Democrats are hoping that Ukrainegate will succeed where Russiagate
failed and they can win the presidency without helping their voters.
"This spectacle is a get out the vote effort that doubles as anti-Russian propaganda."
In other words this is a battle to ensure that the Democratic Party does not do what it
has done a couple of times before in history and become aligned with the people against the
oligarchs.
The last to manage that were FDR in 1936 (though Huey Long didn't think so) and WJ Bryan
in 1896. He came very close to winning in his challenge to the financiers, Wall St and the
rich.
There is a real chance this year that Sanders will win the Primaries and in doing so break
the hold that the corporate machines have over the Democratic Party.
To win Sanders will have, first of all, to win the support of the black voters who have
become the most reliable and malleable vote bank in the party. This would break the hold of
the Black Misleadership Class which exists to ensure that class politics do not develop. The
great fear of the oligarchy and their paid agents in the black community is that voters will
stop thinking in racial terms and start judging politicians by their policies.
If that should happen, and 'Every Man become a King', the Few might as well emigrate to
Brazil or Colombia, and take the political class, the media and the 'intelligentsia' with
them.
The impeachment hearings will never touch the basic underlying fact that Obama/Biden
Administration restarted the Cold War by supporting the Maidan Coup and greenlighting the
seizing of the ethnic Russian Donbass region. The trench warfare there continues to this
day.
The same Corporate Democrats together with the Five-Eyes Intelligence Community have
conducted a continuous campaign to defeat and then remove Donald Trump. But they are so
incompetent that he is still in the White House but he is under pressure, all alone,
frustrated and angry, with only his daughter and Kellyanne Conway for support.
Yesterday, the USS Carrier Abraham Lincoln entered Persian Gulf after 6 months nearby;
Carrier Harry Truman is back at sea, ahead of relieving the Lincoln. US National Guard
armored units deployed to eastern Syria to keep the oil. The September drone attack shows
that Aramco's oil production facilities can be taken out at any time. A bad day and the
global economy crashes.
The only conclusion is that the hatred between globalist oligarchs and nationalists is
so deep and powerful that the consequences of a World War are ignored. The 2020 election is
pointless. The Republic is dead. The Empire shutters from internal conflict. If the Battle of
Carrhae replays once again, the war with Iran will force any survivors to retreat from the
Middle East.
Pelosi is driving this impeachment bus to a trial in the Senate next year at the height of
the primaries. The goal is to keep Warren and Bernie locked up in the Senate chamber, giving
Mayor Pete and Biden ( and maybe Bloomberg) a chance to gain ground and win some state races.
The Democrats don't care if they lose to Trump. They will do anything to make sure a
progressive doesn't win to protect their corporate paymasters.
It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this.
Of course they don't. The whole thing is a massive cover up. The idea is to bore the world on
Ukraine, sacrifice Biden and prevent Giulani from digging deeper. There is so much dirt over
Ukraine that just allowing a normal investigation would be suicide for the whole dems, not
just Kerry/Biden/Hillary.
The same thing happened with Russia/Mueller. There was never an attempt to get Trump, just
to distract from Fisa inquiries and the blatant Trump spying. The Durham investigation could
crucify many from Brennan to Hillary to probably Obama.
Bore the world with b/s investigations, hope Trump doesn't have time to do his own
homework. It will never work. Giulani has a ton of dirt to reveal if he wants. And in anycase
Trump won last time by ignoring the mudfight and concentrating on slogans that showed he had
listened to what voters are saying. Working class jobs and pay, and then every time a Dem
calls for "protect the immigrants", Transwomen's rights, better universities or attack
Trump's climate change record they lose a thousand votes.
Dem outrage at Trump is just the best thing for him to win marginal working class votes.
BTW - there seems to be this thing nowadays where you can't say the facts point one way
without claiming to hate the victor. Trump is a crook. Assad is an evil person but. China is
a dreadful place but.
Trump didn't go to Washington until 3 years ago. He is probably the most honest man in the
state.
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
Really, it's the Blue wing of the Quigley Party which, for obvious reasons, must run the
anterior assault with passive assistance from the Red wing. Schiff's role was to do a better
job of simulating substance, if the real stuff couldn't be found.
The RINOs need an optical rope-bridge, allowing them to embark on a
principled/Constitutional and oh-so-difficult moral traverse that they can be seen
reluctantly rising to for the benefit of taking the edge off incensed MAGAs. At this point,
the plan of necessity is to weather the civil insurrection because Trump simply has to
go.
Alas Schiff is not delivering much. Nonetheless I suspect that after trying everything and
the kitchen sink to get Trump, reluctant Senators' own dirty (NSA) dossiers will play key
roles. There has never been in the 70-year post WW2 era a more compulsory vote than this. All
swan-divers will be well cared for.
Those who focus on MERIT and SUBSTANCE forget that the real kingmaker is PROCESS. Article
1 Section 3 requires only 'present' Senators need vote on conviction. Thus a lot of games can
be played in the gap and particularly vulnerable RINOs might be allowed a form of sick-day
(e.g. a 20-Senator panel of Dems & Repubs).
It is hard to imagine Trump surviving Mitch's Star Chamber after heaven and earth has been
moved for three years to maneuver him to this point. The singular criticality of the Senate
well only grows as Trump's re-election appears increasingly assured.
T=Of course the less plausible the Schiff findings, the more 'process gerrymandering' will
be relied upon to carry the weight. Again, some level of civil unrest is unavoidable. However
five more years of Trump is a nonstarter.
"Trump is a crook."
I'm confounded by the persisting refusal to draw a qualitative distinction between Trump
and the system he's so clearly at odds with. Not a panacea of course. This is about power.
But distinction enough to rationalize the Herculean efforts being expended to oust
him.
Come on b, do the algebra! Something's lop-sided. Trump could save everyone a lot of
trouble if he simply fell back into the arms of his confederates. Surely at a minimum there's
a material schism in the elites. A schism means daylight in the Panopticon's ceiling. Why
isn't this cheered more?
If Trump swims in crookedness, why does the entire impeachment process hinge on two
ridiculously banal phone calls after over three years of FISA microscopy? Why, in the course
of his 'mock-defense' has he been allowed to turn back the sheets on the existential levels
of Ukraine corruption? Has the Deep State become masochistic in its old age?
And why hasn't the system found his price? Every crook has one. $50 billion would be a
reasonable opening gambit. Does anyone still think this is some kind of false-dialectic
kabuki? If it is, the stage managers deserve the world, or already have it. That, and an
Oscar. Bravo!
Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to
advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the
US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $
flowing.
Confrontation is much more profitable than peace...
I love the title of Rick Wilson's book "Everything Trump Touches Dies". The man is completely
beshitting the presidency and the USA brand. This is not to say it wasn't foul before he laid
his tiny hands on it. He is a symptom as another commenter here points out of the failure of
the system that produced him.
Impeachment will not solve the problem even though impeachment is fully justified on the
basis of his illegal maneuvers in Ukraine. He should be removed from his command for looting
Syria's oil, or for simply entering upon Syrian territory without being invited. Bush should
be in prison for the Iraq war, for that matter. But he's another symptom.
The clear and present danger is Trump who has thrown a monkey wrench into the global
system and disunited the nations. He's wrecked trade relations with China. He's exacerbated
problems in the ME and assisted Israel in the further destruction of the Palestinian people.
He's attempting to dismantle the lawful regulatory function of government and convert it to a
lawless fascist fortress America with only contempt for international law. His ignorance of
environmental problems is vast.
If this man is not removed from office this nation will die. Sooner than it would
otherwise. It is already very sick. This spectacle of impeachment is a weak remedy. We have
no alternative.
Trump is not a crook. He approached the situation with Z no doubt as he has been approached
countless times by the Mob and the Cops in NYC. "Nice country you got here. It would be a
shame if anything were to happen to it." If you sincerely believe Trump's denial of "quid pro
quo" and his handwritten notes, you might be the only one on the planet. That will hardly
save him from impeachment but not enough to get him tossed out (which I agree with others, is
not the Dems objective). Remember too, this did not start with the Dems. And it's not some
murky Deep State. I am surprised you have not focused on the obvious role of Bolton in all
this. He's hiding behind Kupperman now, waiting for everybody to testify, then he will come
out. He obviously has first hand info on all of this, and it's his cadre who have been
leading the charge, and his allies who have been beating the war drums (V, Taylor, Kent, et
al) with Russia. Finally, whatever the Biden boys were up to, Trump went full Tony Soprano.
Not a good look for an empire in decline. It's a textbook example of the constitutional
meaning of bribery.
tintorelli , Nov 21 2019 3:29 utc | 42
Trump is not a crook. He approached the situation with Z no doubt as he has been
approached countless times by the Mob and the Cops in NYC. "Nice country you got here. It
would be a shame if anything were to happen to it." If you sincerely believe Trump's denial
of "quid pro quo" and his handwritten notes, you might be the only one on the planet. That
will hardly save him from impeachment but not enough to get him tossed out (which I agree
with others, is not the Dems objective). Remember too, this did not start with the Dems. And
it's not some murky Deep State. I am surprised you have not focused on the obvious role of
Bolton in all this. He's hiding behind Kupperman now, waiting for everybody to testify, then
he will come out. He obviously has first hand info on all of this, and it's his cadre who
have been leading the charge, and his allies who have been beating the war drums (V, Taylor,
Kent, et al) with Russia. Finally, whatever the Biden boys were up to, Trump went full Tony
Soprano. Not a good look for an empire in decline. It's a textbook example of the
constitutional meaning of bribery.
Slightly off topic: I have been reluctantly listening to the hearings in front of the Star
Chamber of the House. A thing I didn't know (but should have) and learned from the hearings:
Ambassador Volker finds it totally unremarkable that a Ukrainian official would come to him
for editing and approval of a public statement by the Ukrainian government. I think the
foreign service needs a similar cleaning of the Augean Stables.
On Tuesday, Congressional impeachment hearings exposed an
interesting facet of the
current battle
between Donald Trump and the so-called deep state: namely, that
many government bureaucrats now fancy themselves as superior
to the elected civilian
government.
In an exchange between Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Alexander Vindman, a US Army Lt. Colonel,
Vindman insisted that Nunes address him by his rank.
After being addressed as "Mr. Vindman," Vindman
retorted
"Ranking
Member, it's Lt. Col. Vindman, please."
Throughout social media, anti-Trump forces, who have apparently now become pro-military
partisans, sang Vindman's praises, applauding him for putting Nunes in his place.
In a properly functioning government -- with a proper view of military power -- however, no one
would tolerate a military officer lecturing a civilian on how to address him "correctly."
It is not even clear that Nunes was trying to "dis" Vindman,
given that junior
officers have historically been referred to as "Mister" in a wide variety of times and place. It is
true that higher-ranking offers like Vindman are rarely referred to as "Mister," but even if Nunes
was
trying
to insult Vindman, the question remains: so what?
Military modes of address are for the use of
military
personnel, and no one
else.
Indeed, Vindman was
forced
to retreat on this point
when later asked by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) if he always insists on
civilians calling him by his rank. Vindman blubbered that since he was wearing his uniform (
for
no good reason, mind you
) he figured civilians ought to refer to him by his rank.
Of course, my position on this should not be construed as a demand that people give greater
respect to members of Congress.
If a private citizen wants to go before Congress and refer
to Nunes or any other member as "hey you," that's perfectly fine with me.
But the
important issue here is we're talking about
private citizens
-- i.e., the people who pay
the bills -- and not military officers who must be held as subordinate to the civilian government at
all times.
After all,
there's a reason that the framers of the US Constitution went to great pains
to ensure the military powers remained subject to the will of the civilian government.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century Americans regarded a standing army as a threat to their freedoms.
Federal military personnel
were
treated accordingly.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to raise
and support Armies " and "to provide and maintain a Navy." Article II, Section 2 states, "The
President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The authors of the constitution were careful to divide up civilian power of the
military, and one thing was clear:
the military was to have no autonomy in policymaking
.
Unfortunately, early Americans did not anticipate the rise of America's secret police in
the form of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other "intelligence" agencies. Had they, it is likely the
anti-federalists would have written more into the Bill of Rights to prevent organizations like the
NSA from shredding the fourth amendment, as has been the case.
The inversion of the civilian-military relationship that is increasingly on display
in Washington is just another symptom of the growing power of often-secret and unaccountable
branches of military agencies and intelligence agencies that exercise so much power both in
Washington and around the world.
"... Morrison also testified that the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine due to Trump's general skepticism toward foreign aid , and a "concern that Ukrainians were not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the view that Ukraine has a significant corruption problem ." ..."
"... "I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment . Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment," he recalled. ..."
"... When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said "It was brought to my attention that some had -- some of my personnel had concerns that he did [have access to things he was not supposed to see] ." ..."
A former top national security adviser to President Trump told a secret impeachment panel that he
believed nothing improper occurred during a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
president Volodomyr Zelensky,
according to a
transcript
released over the weekend.
NSC official Tim Morrison, who was on that phone call, expressed this narrative-killing opinion
to the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee
last month
- which would have
undermined recent public testimony by several US officials who said that President Trump abused his
office when he asked Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe Biden and matters related to the 2016 US
election.
That said, Morrison also testified that US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, was involved
in an effort to encourage Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden - though he could not say whether Trump
was involved in those efforts.
He was uncertain of Trump's involvement in Sondland's efforts. "
I'm still not
completely certain that this was coming from the President
," Morrison testified to
House Democrats. "I'm only getting this from Ambassador Sondland."
During a closed-door deposition as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Morrison was asked,
"
In your view, there was nothing improper that occurred during the call?
"
"
Correct
," he answered as he was testifying under oath. -
Epoch
Times
Morrison replaced former NSC official Fiona Hill, who resigned from her position on July 19,
days before the infamous Trump-Zelensky call. He says that the word "Burisma" never came up during
that call, referring to the Ukrainian natural gas company which employed Hunter Biden on its board
while Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to have a prosecutor fired who was
investigating the company.
Trump asked Zelensky to investigate this, as well as allegations that Ukraine was involved with
the hacked DNC server as well as the only firm allowed to look at it, Crowdstrike.
Morrison also testified that
the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine
due to Trump's general skepticism toward foreign aid
, and a "concern that Ukrainians were
not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the
view that
Ukraine has a significant corruption problem
."
Morrison was asked more about the phone call.
"
You were on the call. Do you remember whether the name Burisma came up on the call?"
"No, I don't believe it did,
" he said.
The answer is significant, as a junior NSC official, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, testified to
the House Intelligence Committee that Zelensky brought up the word "Burisma." However,
Morrison said that he has the "final clearing authority" on the July 25 call transcript
.
"Do you remember whether anyone suggested edits adding the word Burisma to the [memorandum of
conversation]?" Morrison was asked. "
I do not
," he responded. Vindman testified
that he suggested to edit in the word "Burisma."
But when asked about Vindman's suggestions,
Morrison said he approved all of them
.
"Had I recalled or had it in my notes that was mentioned, yes, I would have agreed to the
edit," he said of the word "Burisma." -
Epoch
Times
Morrison also told Congressional investigators that
he questioned Vindman's judgement
and that other NSC officials shared those concerns.
"I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment
. Among the
discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and
its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment," he recalled.
"I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what."
When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said
"It was brought to my attention that some had -- some of my personnel had concerns that
he did
[have access to things he was not supposed to see]
."
Following closely on the heels of sanctions and freeze orders by
the European Union and the United States, the primary objectives of
UFAR include facilitating international cooperation for the early
tracing of assets and identifying specific capacity building needs
for Ukraine. US Attorney General Eric Holder announced at the
conference that the Department of Justice would be placing a Justice
Department attorney in Kyiv to work exclusively on asset recovery and
mutual legal assistance. He also announced the formation of a
dedicated kleptocracy squad within the FBI.
UFAR's organizers, the United States and the United Kingdom, have
long been the most aggressive in recovering and repatriating assets
of corrupt officials and have formed units specifically to address
the issue since the entry into force of the United Nations Convention
Against Corruption, which, among other international commitments,
contains a critical chapter on the return of the proceeds of
corruption to countries of origin.
"The key character we should be
talking about is Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney General.
No one has commented on the
chutzpah
of the Obama
administration demanding Ukraine fire Viktor Shokin, its top
prosecutor, for failing to prosecute Ukraine's most elite
criminals that had corrupted the entire system. Goldberg
explains:
"Shokin was seen as a single point of failure clogging up
the system and blocking corruption cases," a former official in
Barack Obama's administration told me. Vice President Joe Biden
eventually took the lead in calling for Shokin's ouster.
"We weren't pressing Ukraine to get rid of a tough
prosecutor, we were pursuing Ukraine to replace a weak
prosecutor who wouldn't do his job," Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Volker in his deposition defended Mr. Biden's work in
Ukraine and pointed out that the prosecutor was corrupt and
worked to shield favored people from prosecution, rather than
go after wrongdoers, according to the person familiar with his
testimony.
The international effort to remove Shokin, who became
prosecutor general in February 2015, began months before Biden
stepped into the spotlight, said Mike Carpenter, who served as
a foreign policy adviser to Biden and a deputy assistant
secretary of defense, with a focus on Ukraine, Russia, Eurasia,
the Balkans, and conventional arms control.
As European and U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to clean up
Ukraine's corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of
the Prosecutor General's Office.
"Shokin played the role of protecting the vested interest in
the Ukrainian system," said Carpenter, who traveled with Biden
to Ukraine in 2015. "He never went after any corrupt
individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of
corruption."
That demonstrated that Poroshenko's administration was not
sincere about tackling corruption and building strong,
independent law enforcement agencies, said Heather Conley,
director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, a Washington-based foreign policy think
tank.
I have not found any article that points out the obvious
hypocrisy of the Obama administration demanding that a nation's
top prosecutor be fired for failing to prosecute the nation's most
powerful, corrupt, and destructive elite financial criminals. The
hypocrisy of Obama praising Holder while demanding Shokin's 'head'
was epic. To fix a problem one must first admit it and resolve to
fix it. Instead, Holder and Obama went with the preposterous lie
that there were no fraudulent elite bankers, so they brought no
prosecutions of the elite bankers whose frauds drove the GFC"
So basically, Corruptocrats want to impeach Trump, because he held up
foriegn aid to Ukraine, that was being money laundered back to the
curruptocrats like Joe Bidens son, and also because Trump wanted the
corruption investigated?....
And then the American news media
declares Trump is the criminal in all this?...
And in William Barrs grand jury room the chirping crickets are the
jury.....
Why do I get the feeling that D.C. is heading for one big reset
from a lot of pissed off people?.....
And let's not forget that Vindman
is (((Ukrainian))). So we have an un-elected Ukrainian by birth
working actively to, at best, replace his Commander-In-Chief's
judgment with his own and, at worst, actively subvert
his Commander-In-Chief's policy decisions and have him removed
from office.
Are there any military codes that might address such a
situation?
Read the transcript of his testimony. Ratcliffe gets him to
basically admit he advised his Uke counterparts to ignore
Trumps directions. The follow up is hysterical and his attorney
has to jump in and save his ***. A classic beat-down, complete
with stammering and and "holier than thou" comments from his
attorney, "if you want to go this direction, God be with you"
1.
Mr. Morrison did not believe anything improper
occurred on the July 25 call.
(p. 60)
2.
Mr. Morrison testified that the memorandum of
conversation (a phrase used to describe the call transcript) of
the July 25 call was complete and accurate.
(p. 60)
3. Mr. Morrison, who listened to the July 25 call, testified
that he was not concerned about the substance of what was
discussed on the call – only that the transcript might leak.
(p. 46-47)
4. Mr. Morrison was told by National Security Council lawyer
John Eisenberg that the July 25 call record mistakenly ended up
on the highly classified system, debunking the Democrats'
allegations of an attempted "cover up."
5.
Mr. Morrison repeatedly testified that he purposefully
kept Lt. Col. Vindman out of the loop on this matter because he
had concerns about Vindman's judgment, which were also raised
to him by Fiona Hill and others.
6. Mr. Morrison testified that, as the final clearing
authority for any edits made to the 7/25 call package, he
accepted all of Lt. Col. Vindman's proposed edits. (p. 61-62)
7. Mr. Morrison testified that he does not believe Burisma
came up on the call or that anyone suggested edits to the mem-con
to include the word Burisma. (p. 64)
8. Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman relayed two
concerns to him about the July 25 call: that the call did not
get into the subject matter they had hoped, and the fidelity of
the translation. (p. 72-73)
9.
Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman never
reported to Morrison any of the "light queries" that he
received from Ukrainian officials in August regarding the hold
on aid.
(p. 93)
10. Mr. Morrison confirmed that President Trump generally
does not like foreign aid generally, and specifically held
concerns that corruption in Ukraine may cause U.S. aid to be
"misused."
This should end the Democrat impeachment proceedings. There
is no crime. There was no crime. And Democrats continue to lie to
the American people about their secret sham investigation!
when news of hunter came out, I investigated a bit. I dont want to
blame an innocent person..So I went to leftist news and browsed...An
article on a msm website defended hunter, saying "many top officials
were concerned about corruption in burisma..Had nothing to do with
hunter. Hunter just worked there...So, I am not a ******* like the
left, and let them have the benefit of the doubt. Not enough proof to
beat up hunter is what I thought...but now, they twisted their lies
again and go after trump. unbelievable, I even researched and gave
hunter the benefit of the doubt, and that wasnt enough, now the left
commies are fibbing ovver their own fibs...unbelievable....burisma
was/is a corrupt entity and many top officials asked for them to be
investigated...even the left commies put out articles about it...dear
jesus
No one would argue that Ukraine isn't a cesspool of corruption,
but here's the rub. If trump was really concerned about that he
could suspend ALL US financial aid until ...umm...they adhered
to American standards of "sound and responsible money management a
fiscal responsibility'
:))
You know, like how the Pentagon accounts for it's trillions..
snicker.
Ok seriously now, the corruption he was interested in was
Burisma and the Biden connection? There's the takeaway right
there.
At the core of the Ukraine problem is this, simply put. The
regime change project has produced little to no dividends for
Corporate America and all the uniparty is willing to spare to
maintain the status quo is chump change in the great scheme of
things. Thus weakening their grip and influence. Kolomoiski,
having returned from exile is now talking about going back with
the Russians..It's a black hole, and all that trump was after was
dirt.
Taylor is a neocon and he is against detente with Russia. So he is part of State Department
nest of neocon vipers.
Taylor was very evasive. but he is a trained diplomat. Taylor will definitely regret his role
( and may be already started to regret ) but he has nothing to lose; he is old enough to
retire.
Notable quotes:
"... I love how CBS completely edited out Nunes first part of his speech about all the lowlife activities the left pulled. ..."
"... My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he was talking about the United States. ..."
My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at
the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he
was talking about the United States.
I have learned to HATE everything the Democrats, their deep state and MSM stand for. It's
beyond comprehension that they have hijacked the greatest nation on earth and subverted the
constitution for personal power and gain! A government takeover by the citizens is not far
off, and the only people who will be safe are a few Republicans in government.
Now this amounts to the impeachment of The President of the United States, for "shaking
the confidence of a close partner for our reliability" Ambassador Taylor. 21:21
18:40 - 19:50 Turner gives a
confused explanation of the "6th Amendment" - right of criminal defendant to “to be
confronted with the witnesses against him” versus The Hearsay Rule - which is evidence
(statements made outside court setting) that may or may not be admissible at trial. Which, in
part, why Judges are present to rule on whether exceptions, exclusions to the Hearsay Rule
apply.
He obviously had his script written before this hearing and didn't listen to what was
actually said. He referenced things that were never even brought up but were talking points
for the Democrats.
...What a blinder and hypocrisy in the highest echelons of power. What a little petty
thinking....Democrats are clearly communists. Do you Americans know what this mean? Obviously
not.
Democrat lunacy on parade Taylor was about as clear as mud and so where his he said, they
said, or i heard someone say something, are we really taking these people seriously.?
Do these republicans not realize that the Ukrainian President is going to say whatever
trump tells him to say so he gets his money and weapons....he’s got a war going on and
must have those resources...what else is he going to say?
If Giuliani seeking information in Ukraine is such an abnormal thing as to cause alarm
then please explain DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa and the years she has spent in Ukraine
performing opposition research along with maintaining close ties with the NSCand the Obama
whitehouse.
There is no evidence against Trump and Taylor was so tongue-tied that he couldn't answer
some of those questions. I loved Jordan asking all those questions and putting those two
witnesses in place. In the court of law they WILL NOT TAKE HEARSAY because I worked for the
courts and lawyers so I know what the Judge would say. this is nothing but a scham and when
Trump gets to be President again I hope he puts Schiff in prison!!!!!!!
After House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) took time out of today's impeachment testimony to
rebuke President Trump for "witness intimidation," President Trump hit back.
During testimony from former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Trump took aim at her over
Twitter, saying "
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad
. She started off in
Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke
unfavorably about her..."
Following Trump's tweet, Schiff dramatically interrupted questioning from his staff counsel to read
Trump's tweet aloud - asking Yovanovitch what effect Trump's tweet might have on future witnesses, to
which she replied that it would be "very intimidating.
Trump's tweet was so troubling that former Media Matters employee Paul Waldman wrote in the
Washington Post
that Trump "talks and acts like a Mafioso" in an article entitled
"Yovanovitch hearing confirms that
Trump is running a thugocracy
."
Following Schiff's dramatic exchange, Trump was asked whether his words can be intimidating, to
which he said "I don't think so at all."
"
I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do
,"
Trump told White House reporters following remarks on a health care initiative, adding that he's
"allowed to speak up" and defend himself.
It's remarkable how tone deaf the Beltway Bubble has made these
bureaucrats and their clingers. The United States elected Donald
Trump, to get rid of people like Marie Yovanovitch. If anything, he
needs to speed things up.
We are at a turning point in our history. The Dems and
their Deep State agents have once again proven that they will go to
any lengths to destroy the constitution, upend the rule of law, lie,
cheat, steal and twist words to accomplish any goal.
I pretty much stopped having an ounce of sympathy for Trump this
week. On day two of his presidency he should have locked up Hillary,
and he didn't. He then has the ******* balls to tell us that "they"
meaning the Clintons "are good people". Are you ******* kidding me ?
? ?
For more than six months now, EVERYONE on planet Earth has
known about the Deep State, Obama, Biden, Pelosy, Brennan, Comey,
McCabe Stzrok, Page, Lynch, Rice ,Powers, Misfud, Fusion GPS ,Halper,
Neuland, Schiff, Nadler, Wray, Rosenstein, the entire Mainstream
Media and three dozen other ******* treasonous assholes tearing this
country apart.
And what exactly has Trump done to bring these people to justice
for treason and seditious conspiracy ? Jack ******* squat !
Epstein allegedly gets murdered in his cell/disapears, and all
Barr does is ******* shrug his shoulders like Schultz and says "I
know nothing". Assange is slowly being murdered in his cell while
Trump claims " I never heard of Wikileaks". Snowden and Manning are
enemies of the state, and nobody seems to care.
Meanwhile the entire country is being overrun up to our eyeballs
with illegals, the mentally ill are walking around like a zombie
apocalypse and the rule of law is totally dead.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and
thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."-
Joseph Goebbels
Sputnik is reporting that the US has spent $6.4 Trillion fighting wars that have killed
800,000 since Sept 11/01, that number is unbelievable, at least 1,500,000 dead in Iraq,
250,000 in Afghanistan, 750,000 in Syria.
The US military budget alone has averaged about 650 billion since then, plus the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were funded separately (around 200 million a year), plus CIA/ blackbook
projects - 7 or 8 trillion is a more likely number.
When things get blown up, no one really knows what was actually bought and existed and
what was just a phantom piece of equipment War has always been the ideal cover for
corruption
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
"... In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank? ..."
"... John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. ..."
"... In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports? ..."
"... Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country? ..."
"... If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate? ..."
"... At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky? ..."
The next big witness for the House Democrats' impeachment hearings is Marie Yovanovitch, the
former American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last spring at President Trump's
insistence.
It is unclear what firsthand knowledge she will offer about the core allegation of this
impeachment: that Trump delayed foreign aid assistance to Ukraine in hopes of getting an
investigation of Joe Biden and Democrats started.
Nonetheless, she did deal with the Ukrainians going back to the summer of 2016 and likely
will be an important fact witness.
After nearly two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, here are 15 questions I think could
be most illuminating to every day Americans if the ambassador answered them.
Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev
ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance
to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top
representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma
Holdings or the Bidens?
What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go
to Ukraine in 2018?
In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence
or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and
his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the
IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained
influence over Ukraine's national bank?
Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or
unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a
Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned
about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be
viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in
testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action
Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also
known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to
reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in
funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the
perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent
millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record,
videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of
names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target.
Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do
anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you
just rely on press reports?
Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his
account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of
the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed
the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or
harassed?
Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House
Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the
Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials.
These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an
investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about
certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and
NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and
did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign
diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?
On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of
Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian
presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal
interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under
Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few
days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal
personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might
raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney
General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with
Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or
an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have
any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John
Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former
Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State
Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and
were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of
these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry,
Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise
Burisma with you?
What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why
the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media
communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering
analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did
anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State
resources might be improper or illegal?
"... To become a Foreign Service Officer you must take a written and an oral exam. If you pass these exams then you win the golden ticket granting you entrance into the FSO club. FSOs have convinced themselves that only the smartest, the brightest, the most able can pass this exam. If you have not taken the exam and passed it then you are by definition not a very smart person. ..."
"... Many FSOs looked down their nose at these knuckle dragging gorillas masquerading as Special Operations forces at U.S. They assumed they were barely literate. Imagine their shock when the FSOs discovered that a member of the elite U.S. Army CT unit or a member of the SEALS could actually speak a foreign language, had read some real literature and held an advanced college degree. Not making this up. ..."
"... The Foreign Service contains many officers who take arrogance and prickishness to new heights. You make a fatal error if you believe that because they tend to be soft spoken and non-confrontational that they are not dangerous and devious. Au contraire. Many that rise in the Foreign Service have a knack for sticking a knife in the back of a perceived rival. ..."
"... Just another day in the life of a Pomposity. From what I have seen of tomorrow's witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person I encountered in the Office of Counter Terrorism. Arrogant and aggrieved and convinced that she is so much smarter than the troglodytes who will be asking her questions. ..."
"... You get to the point of not caring if you don't get the credit. You just want to be able to do your job better and go home each night ..."
"... It's common for females in almost every work situation I held. Pompous men getting the credit for what a whole office of females actually did -- sometimes doing things and making decisions they just didn't ask the boss to "approve." ..."
14 November 2019Understanding the Foreign Service Officer Nerd Behavior by Larry C Johnson
A group of lions is called a "pride." A group of crows is called a "murder." A group of
geese is called a "gaggle." So what do you call a group of Ambassadors? A pomposity (that term
was coined by Colonel Lang when the two of us were working on an exercise on Iran and there
were three Ambassadors huddled in a corner scheming--brilliant).
There are two types of Ambassadors--political appointees and Foreign Service Officers who
have made their way to the top of the Foreign Service mountain. The two fellows testifying at
the opening of the House Impeachment inquiry -- Kent and Taylor -- are Foreign Service
Officers. They are a strange lot. There are some exceptions who are normal people, such as
Ambassador Morris (Buzz) Busby and Ambassador Anthony Quainton. I worked for Buzz and dealt
with Ambassador Quainton on a variety of policy issues.
I conducted training for U.S. military Special Ops forces for several years in the aftermath
of 9-11. My task was to teach them how to understand the culture of the Foreign Service
Officers and offer tips on how to interact. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks,
U.S. SpecOps personnel were deployed to U.S. Embassies around the world and were having some
trouble interacting with the so-called diplomats.
To become a Foreign Service Officer you must take a written and an oral exam. If you pass
these exams then you win the golden ticket granting you entrance into the FSO club. FSOs have
convinced themselves that only the smartest, the brightest, the most able can pass this exam.
If you have not taken the exam and passed it then you are by definition not a very smart
person.
Many FSOs looked down their nose at these knuckle dragging gorillas masquerading as Special
Operations forces at U.S. They assumed they were barely literate. Imagine their shock when the
FSOs discovered that a member of the elite U.S. Army CT unit or a member of the SEALS could
actually speak a foreign language, had read some real literature and held an advanced college
degree. Not making this up.
The Foreign Service contains many officers who take arrogance and prickishness to new
heights. You make a fatal error if you believe that because they tend to be soft spoken and
non-confrontational that they are not dangerous and devious. Au contraire. Many that rise in
the Foreign Service have a knack for sticking a knife in the back of a perceived rival.
Let me give you a personal example. A female Ambassador who was a Deputy in the Office of
the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism had a blow up when I helped a Navy SEAL Commander, who
was detailed to State, revamp a memo she had already approved because an important overseas
asset deployed for responding to a international terrorist incident had been inadvertently left
out of the memo. When my SEAL buddy went in to brief her on the change she started screaming at
him, broke her lamp and threw a bottle of hand lotion at him. If she had been a man my friend
would have physically retaliated. Instead, my SEAL buddy walked out of the office and recounted
the incident to a Civil Service employee in the office. That employee happened to be the
neighbor of Ambassador A. Peter Burleigh, who was in charge of S/CT during that time.
When Ambassador Burleigh learned of her outburst he called her to his office and read her
the riot act. What did she do? She assumed I was the one (I was not) who had ratted on her to
Ambassador Burleigh. She set out to destroy me. My boss at the time was a retired Marine Corps
Colonel, Dominick "Dick" Gannon. What a gentleman. I counted him as a mentor and a second
father. Hard as woodpecker lips and a man who lived by a code of honor.
Dick prepared my fitness report and submitted it to his supervisor, the crazy female FSO.
She demanded he change it to trash me and he refused. So she waited. Dick went overseas on a
diplomatic mission and the female Ambassador snuck upstairs to the 7th floor (i.e., the
Secretary of State's suite). She filed a complaint against Dick accusing him of failing to do
the evaluation in a timely manner. Fortunately, the admin person she talked to, Joanne Graves,
looked it over, saw that Dick had signed and informed the female FSO that the person who had
failed to act in a timely manner was her. She was furious but beaten.
Just another day in the life of a Pomposity. From what I have seen of tomorrow's
witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person I encountered in the Office of
Counter Terrorism. Arrogant and aggrieved and convinced that she is so much smarter than the
troglodytes who will be asking her questions.
I am not saying that all FSOs are like this. But a large number are. You will be seeing
another one of these critters in Friday's testimony.
Ah, troglodytes ... a decade ago I was told that I was one too. Because I can ... count.
As a student I worked in a marketing company that sold US credit cards. My part of the job
was more honourable: I was tasked with administering the phone numbers called to do that.
It's like that with these numbers: You call someone and he sais " Never ever call me
again, never ever, you a**hole " the number is blocked to be recalled for 6 weeks and was
then called again. If the person agrees to appointment with a seller, the number is blocked
for a year etc pp.
The point is, the more you call the less numbers you have left. Call in a city for a week,
starting with 5000 numbers - after a week you're left with, say, 300 (mostly crap).
To make after that many or any more appointments then is simply impossible or requires a
lot of luck or, much worse, to re-use the numbers by nullifying all blockings (= burning
resources).
It's that simple: To make fried eggs you need eggs, a stove and a pan (or a really hot
engine hood), to make bricks you need clay, if you want to drive from Europe to Vladivostok
you need ... a visum, money, time, food, good weather, a warm jacket, to know russian, have a
robust car and a lot of fuel etc pp.
One day another employee (nice ties, glued hair and IMO seriously business study damaged)
negotiated a new contract with the credit card company with very ambitious goals, without
asking whether we had the resources (phone numbers) to achieve that.
And we didn't have what was needed and the bosses decided and chose not to buy more
numbers. So I told the unfortunate guy tasked with achieving the demanded sales that, with
the numbers left, we simply couldn't do it.
I was then wildly insulted to be a ... troglodyte, wicked, mean, illoyal, evil, that I
would lie and some more of that sort. I was fired 15 minutes later, which annoyed as hell
but, on the plus side, with luck led me to a three times better paid much better job
elsewhere.
The part more entertaining me was that I was absolutely correct, which I learned a few
months later from a former colleague:
The company was bankrupt eight weeks later, and the guy who fired me had a burnout or
mental breakdown three weeks later. One of the bosses went from having been a millionaire to
work as a waiter. The contract partner simply chose another "executor" (who was amusingly
employing the same salesmen).
So, I was right, and what did it give me? Not much but a bad experience and, with luck,
something much better elsewhere. Alas, and good riddance.
Yes, it's not often that someone who is right first gets the credit. It's true in business,
educational organizations--well everywhere I ever worked. I just got used to someone else
getting credit for things I had put in place first.
You get to the point of not caring if you don't get the credit. You just want to be able
to do your job better and go home each night.
It's common for females in almost every work situation I held. Pompous men getting the
credit for what a whole office of females actually did -- sometimes doing things and making
decisions they just didn't ask the boss to "approve."
I am struck by the fact that a woman mentioned above actually threw a bottle of hand
lotion at a SEAL who came to Main State to brief her. Much the same thing happened to me with
a male FSO who was DCM in an embassy in which I was DATT.
I had drafted a lengthy report to DIA that described the local armed forces as inept and difficult to train. The embassy had
the right to append remarks to my report but not to change it or block it without my
agreement. The DCM tried for half an hour to pressure me into changing my report to make it
more favorable to the local forces.
When I refused repeatedly to do so he threw the fifteen
page message form across the room at me. I got up and left, leaving it where it fell. After
talking to the ambassador the man apologized and the embassy sent my message.
Someone's ox is getting slowly and methodically gored. Solomon's reporting on Ukraine and
the State Department has been spot on and backed up by solid evidence.
Dems skillfully changed the narrative from Biden's Corruption to Trump actions against his potential Presidential candidate
(which is actually much less dangerous to Trump then Warren or Sanders; it is optimal for Trump variation of Hilary 2.0 theme )
The issue of supplying Ukraine arm to destabilize the region (with the USA on the receiving end of the potential Russia
retaliation incase of escalation of the conflict ) was changed in "withholding the aid from the ally". Real propaganda
professionals.
Looks like George Kent is dyed-in-the-wool neocon and belongs to the neocon vipers nest in the State Department as
Nuland. He is
actually extremely damaging for the USA foreign policy person. Another crazy USA supremacist, believer in "Full Spectrum
Domination" doctrine
Notable quotes:
"... I really wish that TAC writers would stop offering concessions to the neocons in an effort to appear "serious" and "reasonable". It's disingenuous, counterfactual, and it does not work. Russia did not invade Ukraine. (You could say that about Crimea, but if you were to do so, you should also admit that the locals welcomed the "invaders" as liberators.) ..."
"... Conservatives are basically wimps, that is why they feel they have to throw the neocon dogs some bones ..."
"... If his domestic political opponents have been engaged (or even suspected of being engaged) in corrupt dealings with foreign governments, why should they not be investigated??? ..."
"... The civilians killed are almost all on the Donbass side of the line (as a result of Ukrainian terror attacks). The civilians on the other side of the line are not attacked. The Ukrainian line is that the Novorussians are shelling themselves, but that would require them, among other absurdities, to invent artillery shells that can do a 180 degree turn mid-flight. ..."
"... These foreign policy experts ignore the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians *are* Russians and proud of their heritage but do not want to join the Russian Federation and support a united Ukraine. I was a relentless critic of Obama but the more I read about Euromaiden and the subsequent Russian invasion/annexation the more I agree with his policy or not rushing in to supply arms in what was a confusing situation that was part civil war between factions of Ukrainians. ..."
"... The 13,000 Ukrainian deaths could probably have been avoided had the US had stayed out of Ukraine's internal affairs and not encouraged the overthrow of its elected government back in 2014, however corrupt it was. It was naive of the US State Department and specifically Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary for East European Affairs (who served in this role under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) to think that Russia would not respond to a shift in Ukrainian foreign policy in favor of the West. ..."
"... The Deep State lies about the Ukraine and US involvement in political and economic corruption there are just astounding, but not surprising. The US and NATO bear a huge portion of the blame for destabilizing an already unstable "nation," being largely responsible for the coup that ousted the rightful President Yanukovich in 2014 (whom they also helped deny election in 2004). NATO itself should have been disbanded after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded. Instead it has taken an ever more expansionist and aggressive stance toward Russia. ..."
"... The US drove forward with NATO until this inevitably happened. Then resistance became "aggression." It was imagined that NATO would station its ships in former Russian Black Sea bases of the Crimea, and so lock down Russia's north-south river system as completely as someone allowed to capture New Orleans and close the Mississippi river system. That attempt had to produce a war of some sort. Russia just had to resist that. The US did it anyway, guys like George Kennan in his last years protesting without effect. ..."
"... Refusing to consider what it was about themselves or their agenda for why they lost the election, Unable, or unwilling to allow a change of course they set about an entire process for revenge. Refusing to take this time to reassess themselves, their candidates or their agenda they have chosen instead to plow ahead in their attempts to overturn the election. by impeachment and conviction or at least damaging the president so badly making his unelectable. ..."
"... Demonstrating the worst attributes of a prosecution: a case with no evidence to the charge, manufacturing evidence, open admissions that the witnesses saw a crime or we even in the room when the alleged crime took place -- they are showing how the system works and why government cannot be trusted, maybe the public probably too busy trying to earn a living to attend to the details explains why half of them actually believe that Russia infiltrated the US to sabotage an election, regardless that no evidence supports the accusation. ..."
"... If it is an impeachable offense, then just about every administration that has been around since I have been alive should have been nailed. Do you think we don't make deals with no strings attached? ..."
"... Those string attached are for the benefit of the US. NOT for the benefit of particular persons. Strings attached to official aid to benefit particulars is called CORRUPTION ..."
"... Not a criminal act and you have your facts wrong. The president referenced CrowdStrike at the center of the collusion and Russian hack accusations) and given the circumstances of the VP's son and the VP conduct regarding an investigation in progress in the Ukraine -- the suspicions are entirely reasonable and the VP openly speaks about what he did ---- political rival or not that confession is a fact. ..."
"... -- it's metaphysically impossible to desperately need something unless you are already receiving that same thing; or if someone else once said you didn't need the thing; or wrote an op-ed saying you needed the thing but we shouldn't be the ones to provide the thing you need ..."
Choking on the Democrats' Ukraine Fantasy Narrative
Officials and media delivered enough untruths and distortions yesterday to cause us all
heartburn. State Department deputy assistant secretary, George Kent, left, and acting U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine, William B. Taylor, right, appear for a House Intelligence Committee
impeachment hearing Wednesday November 13, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Matt McClain/The
Washington Post via Getty Images)
A top U.S. State Department official began his testimony before the House impeachment
inquiry with eye-popping analogies comparing patriotic Ukrainians to the Minutemen of the
American revolution. His narrative went unchallenged, as all of Washington appears to have
suddenly fallen in love with the poor, defenseless, disadvantaged Ukraine that President Trump
tried to deny arms to.
George Kent, a U.S. State Department official who served under five presidents, told the
House Intelligence Committee Wednesday morning that after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014,
occupying seven percent of its territory, "Ukraine's state institutions were on the verge of
collapse" until "the 21st century Ukrainian equivalent of our own Minutemen in 1776" bought
"time for the regular army to reconstitute."
"Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their
territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression," said Kent. "American support in
Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard." Here's more:
"By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against British imperial might
without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of Lafayette's organized
assistance to General George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul Jones' navy, Congress
has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five years in desperately needed
train and equip security assistance to Ukraine . Similar to von Steuben training colonials at
Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv
near the Polish border, and elsewhere. They help rewrite military education for Ukraine's
next generation, as von Steuben did for America's first."
One would think, listening to this, that the U.S. had always provided arms to Ukraine, and
that Ukraine has relied on this aid for years. But this is completely untrue, and the
Washington blob knows it.
Back in 2014, when Russia annexed a large swath of Ukraine, the Obama administration
declined to arm Ukraine, fearing that adding American weapons to the conflict would spark a hot
war between the U.S. and Russia. At the time, Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain argued
vociferously against Obama's policy.
"The Obama Administration's policy in Ukraine effectively amounts to an arms embargo on
victims of aggression," Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain said in a joint statement. "The
United States and the European Union must provide Ukraine with the arms and related military
and intelligence support that its leaders have consistently sought and desperately need."
Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression "demands more than additional empty rhetoric
and threats of lowest-common-denominator sanctions," they wrote. "That has been the extent of
the world's response to Putin's slow-motion dismemberment of Ukraine, and it has consistently
failed to deter new acts of aggression."
Even as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned of a "serious military buildup" by
Russian forces inside Ukraine, the Obama administration still declined to provide Ukraine with
lethal aid.
"We don't think the answer to the crisis in Ukraine is simply to inject more weapons and
engage in tit-for-tat," White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told CNN.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki stressed that the US didn't want to "get into a proxy
war with Russia."
So instead, the U.S. responded to Russian aggression with sanctions and kicking them out of
the G-8 (now G-7.) Instead of providing arms,Washington provided Ukraine with non-lethal aid
and with military advisers and continued to engage in joint training exercises together with
several other countries.
Back when a Democrat occupied the White House, foreign policy experts were comfortable with
an unarmed Ukraine.
Foreign Policy magazine published an article called "Don't Poke the Russian
Bear" just after the Russian incursion into Ukraine. Providing arms to Ukraine would be a
needless escalation of a conflict with Moscow, the piece argues.
Where are all these foreign policy experts and their fears about conflict with Russia now?
Did they all suddenly change their minds now that Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office?
Obama's opinion on arming Ukraine never wavered. Even as late as 2016, he argued to
The Atlantic that Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one.
"The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to
military domination by Russia no matter what we do," said Obama.
Thus, the Trump administration decision to provide Ukraine with weapons was a significant
departure from previous US policy. In August 2017, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis
said the Trump administration was "actively reviewing" the question of whether to provide
lethal assistance to Ukraine. Then in 2018, the State Department approved the sale of 210
Javelin portable anti-tank missiles, as well as launchers, associated equipment, and training,
at a total estimated cost of $47 million.
The media appears to be deliberately blurring the timeline to obscure this fact.
From Politico:
The U.S. has provided about $1.5 billion in military support to Kiev between 2014 and this
past June, according to an updated analysis
by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. And Trump's temporary cut off of the aid
represented a significant setback for the country.
But here's what that CRS report Politico links to actually says: "During the Obama
administration, arguments against the provision of lethal assistance centered on Russia's
ability and willingness to steadily escalate conflict in response," says the report. But things
changed significantly under the Trump administration which "has provided major defensive lethal
weaponry to Ukraine."
The U.S. has only approved the sale of weapons to Ukraine last year! But now, weapons
Obama refused to provide are "a lifeline."
Obscuring the timeline advances the narrative that Ukraine relied on military assistance
which Trump suddenly precipitously withdrew. But the truth is that Ukraine did not even have
this assistance until Trump came into office. How can a country rely on something that was only
authorized last year? about the author Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and
national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about
General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill ,
UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is graduate from Immaculata University in
Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
I really wish that TAC writers would stop offering concessions to the neocons in an effort
to appear "serious" and "reasonable". It's disingenuous, counterfactual, and it does not
work. Russia did not invade Ukraine. (You could say that about Crimea, but if you were to do
so, you should also admit that the locals welcomed the "invaders" as liberators.)
If Russia were to invade Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army, "minuteman patriots(tm)" and
all, would be wiped out in days or hours.
Conservatives are basically wimps, that is why they feel they have to throw the neocon dogs
some bones. It also is why they tend to be history's biggest losers.
If his domestic political opponents have been engaged (or even suspected of being engaged)
in corrupt dealings with foreign governments, why should they not be investigated???
Maybe you think that senior US officials should be immune from investigation, or that
laws don't apply to them?
more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial
integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression," said Kent.
The UN has estimated that the total number killed in Ukraine's war since the Maidan is
13,000. This figure includes casualties in the Donbass region, fighters and civilians,
killed by the armed forces of Kiev. Mr. Kent is enlisting these dead into a cause they died
resisting. Is there no limit to Washington's cynicism?
1. And most of those pro-Kiev soldiers died because they rushed into reckless and poorly
planned offensives and got slaughtered as a result. When they stay on their own side of the
contact line, they don't get killed.
2. The civilians killed are almost all on the Donbass side of the line (as a result of
Ukrainian terror attacks). The civilians on the other side of the line are not attacked.
The Ukrainian line is that the Novorussians are shelling themselves, but that would require
them, among other absurdities, to invent artillery shells that can do a 180 degree turn
mid-flight.
The fact that the Obama administration did not give lethal aid to Ukraine came up at the
impeachment hearing yesterday and was confirmed by the two bureaucrats. A republican asked
about it.
These foreign policy experts ignore the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians *are*
Russians and proud of their heritage but do not want to join the Russian Federation and
support a united Ukraine. I was a relentless critic of Obama but the more I read about
Euromaiden and the subsequent Russian invasion/annexation the more I agree with his policy
or not rushing in to supply arms in what was a confusing situation that was part civil war
between factions of Ukrainians.
Congress disagreed and passed the Ukraine Freedom Act which
mandated sanctions and authorized arms shipments. Obama signed it in December of 2014 but
in his signing statement wrote that wasn't going to implement sanctions or ship arms. Back
then ignoring the will of Congress wasn't an impeachable offense but obviously times change.
The 13,000 Ukrainian deaths could probably have been avoided had the US had stayed out of
Ukraine's internal affairs and not encouraged the overthrow of its elected government back
in 2014, however corrupt it was. It was naive of the US State Department and specifically
Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary for East European Affairs (who served in this role
under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) to think that Russia would not respond to a
shift in Ukrainian foreign policy in favor of the West.
Russia was never going to allow
Sevastopol (in Crimea), its only warm water to become a future NATO base and Ms. Nuland
should have understood that. Crimea had been captured from the Ottoman Empire in Catherine
the Great's time (c. 1783). Nikita Khrushchev had transferred administrative control of
Crimea from Russia to Ukraine at a time (1954) when there was no land link from Crimea to
Russia and no one expected the USSR to break up.
At the time the Soviet Union gave its consent to the peaceful reunification of East and
West Germany in 1990, it was with the understanding that NATO would not expand eastward
beyond its then existing sphere of influence. But NATO and the US violated this
understanding as new member states from the old Soviet block countries were admitted to
NATO starting in 1999.
As the US continues to meddle in the internal affairs of foreign countries and to hand
out billions of dollars in military foreign aid money every year, the medical care our own
veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is being short changed. Watch the documentary
"Delay, Deny and Hope You Die" (free if you have an Amazon Prime Membership).
The Deep State lies about the Ukraine and US involvement in political and economic
corruption there are just astounding, but not surprising. The US and NATO bear a huge
portion of the blame for destabilizing an already unstable "nation," being largely
responsible for the coup that ousted the rightful President Yanukovich in 2014 (whom they
also helped deny election in 2004). NATO itself should have been disbanded after the Warsaw
Pact was disbanded. Instead it has taken an ever more expansionist and aggressive stance
toward Russia.
Ukraine is a largely artificial country, parts of which (The Crimea and eastern Ukraine)
really should just be part of greater Russia (the Russian nation's very roots, after all,
are in mediaeval Kievan Rus). It had never been a sovereign nation-state before 1991, and
its current borders are arbitrary and unworkable demographically. The US line that Ukraine
is a vital national security interest in garbage - they just want to join the oligarchs in
fleecing the country and using it as a proxy in their bizarro-world where Russian bogeymen
are everywhere.
What Congress ought to be investigating is how Joe Biden's son ended up on the board of
one of the most corrupt Ukraine oil companies shortly after own visit to the country while
he was VP. That's where the real corruption is.
The US drove forward with NATO until this inevitably happened. Then resistance became
"aggression." It was imagined that NATO would station its ships in former Russian Black Sea bases of
the Crimea, and so lock down Russia's north-south river system as completely as someone
allowed to capture New Orleans and close the Mississippi river system. That attempt had to
produce a war of some sort. Russia just had to resist that. The US did it anyway, guys like
George Kennan in his last years protesting without effect.
The US did this to Ukraine. It rightly ought to be rather like Austria, Yugoslavia, and
Finland of the Cold War era, a safe space between playing off each against the other.
Instead, it got thrown into NATO's aggression.
Here is the basic question: Did Donald Trump attempt to extort the Ukrainian government to get dirt on Biden? It's a basic
yes or no question. And assuming that he did extort the Ukrainian government, is it enough of a crime and abuse of power for
him to be impeached. Every thing else is irrelevant.
No. He didn't.
Even if you think he did, his behaviour could be considered inappropriate, but that
doesn't make it a criminal offense, no matter how much you hate the man.
Like it or not, Trump WON a legal and constitutionally held election, run according to
electoral college procedures. That doesn't change because he wants to know what REALLY
happened when Biden demanded the Ukr sack its corruption investigator (and then bragged
about it) when the investigator started sniffing around the gas company that Hunter Biden
and been installed in by daddy and his pals.
Readers, don't be fooled by her focus on "arms."
Here's what the report says:
"Since independence, Ukraine has been a leading recipient of U.S. foreign and military
aid in
Europe and Eurasia. In the 1990s (FY1992-FY2000), the U.S. government provided almost
$2.6 billion in total aid to Ukraine ($287 million a year, on average).146 In the 2000s
(FY2001 to
FY2009), total aid to Ukraine amounted to almost $1.8 billion ($199 million a year, on
average).147 In the five years before Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine (FY2010 to
FY2014),
State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) assistance
(including
foreign military financing) totaled about $105 million a year, on average.
Separate
nonproliferation and threat reduction assistance administered by the Departments of Energy
and
Defense amounted to an average of over $130 million a year in obligated funds."
It's true that Obama didn't want to stumble into a proxy war with Russia. It's also true
that Trump tried to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating a political rival.
Blame the media!
Another example of the right's love of Trump. Grab 'em by the truth!
My week started nice. I has been setting dates to take an entire week off to give my body
a rest from exercise, but after but two and half days I couldn't do it. My mind could not
let iot rest. It plagued and nagged with all of those self deprecating thoughts press
against a change of pace or of course. I found myself trying to cram a weeks worth of
exercise into three days without a break . . it was nuts. Passing my quota was not enough
and i have not let it go to this moment, despite what damage i may do to my body.
I guess the democrats are that way. Refusing to consider what it was about themselves or
their agenda for why they lost the election, Unable, or unwilling to allow a change of
course they set about an entire process for revenge. Refusing to take this time to reassess
themselves, their candidates or their agenda they have chosen instead to plow ahead in
their attempts to overturn the election. by impeachment and conviction or at least damaging
the president so badly making his unelectable.
Demonstrating the worst attributes of a
prosecution: a case with no evidence to the charge, manufacturing evidence, open admissions
that the witnesses saw a crime or we even in the room when the alleged crime took place --
they are showing how the system works and why government cannot be trusted, maybe the
public probably too busy trying to earn a living to attend to the details explains why half
of them actually believe that Russia infiltrated the US to sabotage an election, regardless
that no evidence supports the accusation.
Maybe, just maybe enough of them will see this for what it is an abuse of the our system
worthy of condemnation and maybe the next election will be a second dose of shock and awe.
. Sadly should that be the case the message that democrats will here is that they need to
redouble their efforts potential opponents, even if means destroying the republic they
supposedly seek to save.
I see nothing in this article but deflection and whataboutism. Instead, answer the question
these hearings are actually about: Did Donald Trump withhold or threaten to withhold aid or
support from a foreign ally in return for a personal benefit? If so, that's extortion and
abuse of power and an impeachable offense. It's really that simple.
If it is an impeachable offense, then just about every administration that has been around
since I have been alive should have been nailed. Do you think we don't make deals with no
strings attached?
Those string attached are for the benefit of the US. NOT for the benefit of particular
persons. Strings attached to official aid to benefit particulars is called CORRUPTION
According to "Defense News," the millions of dollars in U.S. security assistance provided
to Ukraine during the Obama administration was "...aimed at helping Ukraine monitor and
secure its borders, deploy its forces more safely and effectively, and make progress toward
NATO interoperability." It was also militarily significant. For example, "After Ukraine
received 20 Lockheed Martin AN/TPQ-53 radar systems that track incoming mortar and
short-range artillery fire in 2015, the casualty rate for units equipped with those systems
went from 47 percent to about 18 percent..."
A year after Trump took office, the U.S.added lethal aid to the mix, as authorized in
the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. According to Defense News, these weapons
included "anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade
launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition ― but also unspecified
'cyber' and 'electronic warfare' capabilities."
Ms. Boland's article seems to ignore the amount and the helpfulness of the previous
administration's security aid. It also blithely minimizes the harm of holding up the latest
tranche of enhanced security aid (an action that was done for no discernible reason that
anyone but several impeachment witnesses and Mick Mulvaney seems able to explain).
Agree with you that is interesting that those deep state bureaucrats who think that they
make all the policy and the they run the country did lie, and lie quite often.
But I think you're wrong that they planned anything for years. The deep state just wanted
to get Trump out via any means possible and thought they could just come up with anything.
Only useful idiots (and media) believe their lies. Clearly, you are not one of these useful
idiots.
I am hopeful that Kent is educated enough not to take seriously the analogy between the
Ukraine and the 13 colonies and that this was directed to the ignorant boobocracy that is
fixated on their TV screens watching this dreck unfold and whose knowledge of history is
virtually nonexistent.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong and Kent himself is one of them.
You might want to have some facts that are related to the charges --
"Congressional approved funding would be withheld until Ukraine officials agreed to
investigate (or at least publicly announce an investigation) into the President's political
rival."
Not a criminal act and you have your facts wrong. The president referenced CrowdStrike
at the center of the collusion and Russian hack accusations) and given the circumstances of
the VP's son and the VP conduct regarding an investigation in progress in the Ukraine --
the suspicions are entirely reasonable and the VP openly speaks about what he did ----
political rival or not that confession is a fact.
You do realize there are currently investigations underway in the US on these
issues.
-- Trump did, in fact, do exactly what he was accused of doing
-- you shouldn't whine like a baby when "only" seven percent of your territory is
militarily annexed by a hostile foreign power
-- Lindsay Graham pushed for the very aid Trump held up, but that was different because
that was Obama then and anyway can't you see how Democrats are the unprincipled
hyper-partisans here?
-- non-lethal military aid including military advisors is not military aid because
something something Obama something something mainstream media something Obama
-- it's metaphysically impossible to desperately need something unless you are already
receiving that same thing; or if someone else once said you didn't need the thing; or wrote
an op-ed saying you needed the thing but we shouldn't be the ones to provide the thing you
need
This is how filthy neocon fifth column typically works: "The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of
military aid was contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting
President Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain." Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless
it was directly from Trump it's just a hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever.
"It’s absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls “the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed,” neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies."
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member
or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Taylor notably expressed his concerns in a Sept. 9 text message to US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, saying: " I think
it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. "
To which Sondland replies " Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal
clear no quid pro quo's of any kind, " adding "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
On Tuesday, Mr. Taylor directly addressed accusations surrounding Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Burisma, a Ukrainian
gas company that employed Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., one of the leading Democratic candidates
for president.
He "drew a very direct line in the series of events he described between President Trump's decision to withhold funds and refuse
a meeting with Zelensky unless there was a public pronouncement by him of investigations of Burisma and the so-called 2016 election
conspiracy theories," Ms. Wasserman Schultz said. -
New York Times
As the
Washington
Post notes, Taylor said "By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned
on the investigations of Burisma," the Ukrainian gas firm which employed Hunter Biden, "and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. elections."
He's a Liar. There's no QPQ. We have the transcript of the call. No QPQ. This Frail looking Douche Bag is lying. He's obviously
on the Ukrainian-Take like the rest of them. DNC kept Servers in the Ukraine. Why would they do that??? (wink, wink)
Democrats have called the testimony the most damaging account yet, as Taylor provided an "excruciatingly detailed" opening
statement, according to the
New York Times .
Taylor was a democratic appointee from the Obama administration...shocker. And he was the only one suggesting this was politically
motivated. Sondland corrected him immediately. Nobody else, including the Ukrainians, agree with his "interpretation".
Schiff's bitch said it like he was told to. Nothing to see folks.
Bobzilla. Do not piss him off , 12 minutes ago
link
Wasn't creepy uncle joe doing a quid pro quo when he said no billion $ unless you fir the prosecutor?? Seems the demonrats
have two sets of rules. ******* hypocrites.
That's right, I followed everything Ukraine in detail in 2013, so did my Mom who is 81. She knows more Ukraine than any of
my dirtbag Democrat friends. Hunter Biden corruption old news.
First of all Ukraine had already started to investigate Biden and Burisma in March, second of all the aid was turned over to
them already and there is no resolution to the investigation yet. Third, the Ukrainians have gone on the record saying there was
no pressure. Last, the president has a responsibility to look into corruption even if it was a Demonrat.
Tandem of CIA and the State Department against Trump ?
Notable quotes:
"... Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios ..."
"... Last month, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan reportedly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Trump recalled Yovanovitch after Giuliani singled her out for having an anti-Trump agenda. ..."
"... McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department's unwillingness to support foreign service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent "utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic political objectives. ..."
On Monday, the House committees conducting impeachment inquiries into President Trump released transcripts of testimony from several
witnesses, including former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and career diplomat and former senior adviser to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, Michael McKinley.
Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to
oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening
an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios
Yovanovitch, who left her position in May, testified that she "assumed" Trump's lack of support for her stemmed from a "partnership"
between Giuliani and Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko .
Last month, Deputy Secretary of State
John Sullivan reportedly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Trump recalled Yovanovitch after Giuliani singled her
out for having an anti-Trump agenda.
McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department's unwillingness to support foreign
service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent "utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic
political objectives." -Axios
"... Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty". ..."
"... There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary. ..."
"... The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes. The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM. ..."
"... No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality ! ..."
"... The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor. ..."
"... By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects. ..."
"... I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the 5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner. ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or
factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan
spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples
through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry
into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently
remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy
up & keep her out of the public eye, forever
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if, you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child. Talk about obnoxious
and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less
than $50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it
may seem in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. In
the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together. Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in
the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said,
" when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.) They are a law unto themselves and completely
free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK. "We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains. They also murder people,
at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein. They plant bombs and blow people up. Many of the "terrorist atrocities"
from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies with Gladio on the continent and
the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots
to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent
Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if
they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage
and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly
dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other
cheek. We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people
are poor servants and terrible masters. We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question
– who runs this country, you or the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and
even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests. He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep
any of his promises. Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible,
fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies,
and they were home and dry. Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging
down every rabbit hole they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was
paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years. And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree. And you never even mentioned HQ.Intel. inside.Israel,
today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries' with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on everything-everything
& any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors, like Promis & Prism,
liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet)
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell
their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction. What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule
& intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father
of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering
arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of
the security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on
multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
"... Ukraine cancels arrest warrant against Zlochevsky and closes the case against him. ..."
"... Ukraine's prosecutor closes the case against Burisma after the company agrees to pay UAH 180 millions of tax liabilities. ..."
"... Burisma announces a donation of between $100,000 and 249,999 to the Atlantic Council ..."
"... U.S. supported National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) closes its case against Zlochevsky ..."
"... Joe Biden brags publicly how he blackmailed Poroshenko into firing Shokin. ..."
"... When put this way it is difficult to not ..."
"... Biden son's case is more than demonstrated right now and, in itself, is not even that impressive: it's just bread & butter patronage corruption, which happens all the time in Western Democracies, at all countries, at all levels. What's really impressive here is the scale, because an entire country was destroyed overnight. I mean, if a man as powerful as a vice-POTUS is willing to destroy entire nations just to give his son a sinecure, then no country is safe. ..."
"... A discussion to be followed by prison terms. ..."
"... "Here is to hoping that both sides continue the battle until the whole treasonous house of cards collapses." ..."
"... I agree with previous posters that the real crime was the 2014 coup, and people like Hillary, Victoria Noland and Biden are the greater criminals. But let's not make this a Dem vs Rep thing. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war in Iraq to steal their oil. Both war parties supported Poroshenko and unending anti-Russian invective. It is from that mindset that they argue over whether conditioning military aid to Ukraine constitutes quid pro quo. ..."
"... We've gone through a lot of news sources to see if we couldn't figure out what is going on in Ukraine as to why the Democrats, led by Jewish congressional representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who leads the impeachment committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who is on the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Eliot Engel (D-New York) along with 21 other Jewish Democratic congressional representatives all calling for the impeachment of President Trump because of his phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. ..."
"... As I wrote in April 2015, there are very strong indications that Foreign Affairs Representative for the EU Catherine Ashton, IMF boss Christine Lagarde and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland provided the united US/EU media front for the Ukraine coup, with Biden, Kerry and John McCain too publicity hungry to remain in the background like they were almost certainly supposed to. https://bryanhemming.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/double-double-toil-and-trouble-the-cauldron-of-kiev/ ..."
"... It is like a virtual country that wants to impose a distorted view of itself. Just imagine for a minute if California became independent and all of the sudden the official language is Spanish, all relations at schools, hospitals, state centers, banks, etc. etc. are to be held in Spanish only. Well, that's happening in that new "liberated" for democracy country, the priceless work of Nulands, Bidens et al, plus all the killing, that goes without saying. ..."
"... when a corrupt system lies to itself about its corruption there is some hope. ..."
"... We desperately need a bringer of light. Could it be Tulsi Gabbard? Perhaps, if she has the guts to turn away from Indian and Israeli nationalism and if the people choose to support her truth telling. It's a long shot, but she might be our last hope. ..."
by then-Vice President Joe Biden against the
then-General Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin. Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky,
the owner of the gas company Burisma Holdings which paid Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden at least
$50,000 per month for being on its board.
We used
that timeline to show that Biden's intervention reached its height shortly after the
prosecutor confiscated Zlochevsky houses.
A new report by John Solomon, based on released State Department emails,
supports the suspicion that Joe Biden and others intervened against Shokin on behalf of
Burisma and on request of his son:
Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State
Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President
Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son's company for
corruption, newly released memos show.
During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a
meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption
allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according
to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Just three weeks before Burisma's overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home
of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running
corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.
Solomon points to the same Interfax-Ukraine report about
the prosecutor's action against Burisma owner Zlochevsky that we have used to make our case
against Biden. Other media have so far
ignored that report and several have falsely claimed that the case against Burisma was
"dormant" when Biden intervened to get the Prosecutor General fired.
Below is an integrated timeline which combines the one
WaPo provided with the new
dates from Solomon's reporting and from additional sources. It is intended as a working
reference that can be updated when new details come to light.
Jul 2010 - Apr 2012 Mykola Zlochevsky heads the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources in Ukraine. Several oil and gas
companies owned by Zlochevsky receive lucrative special drilling permits. Feb 23 2014 The U.S.
supported Maidan 'regime change' coup overthrows the elected government of Ukraine. Mar 2014
The EU blocks funds of several Ukrainian oligarchs including Zlochevsky's.
RFERL
Mar 11 2014 Britain blocks the transfer of $23 million owned by Mykola Zlochevsky companies and
opens an investigation against him.
Guardian
Spring 2014 Burisma hires Devon Archer and Hunter Biden as members of its board.
Archer and Biden together own a firm called Rosemont Seneca Partners.
Guardian
May 2014 Rosemont Seneca Partners starts to receive monthly checks of $166,000
from Burisma.
JS
Nov 24 2014 U.S. government organ RFERL publishes a video report showing one of
Zlochevsky's palaces near Kiev. It notes the Hunter Biden connection.
RFERL
Dec 2 2014 Unknown
Ukrainian prosecutor writes letter saying that Zlochevsky is not under suspicion.
Guardian
Late 2014 Zlochevsky is put on Ukraine's most-wanted list for alleged economic
crimes. RFERL
Jan 21 2015 Referring to the
letter by the unknown Ukrainian prosecutor a British court orders the closure of the British
case against Zlochevsky and to release the $23m.
Guardian
Feb 10 2015 Victor Shokin nominated as Prosecutor General of Ukraine
Interfax
Mar 2015 EU
lifts blocking of funds of several Ukrainian oligarchs including Zlochevsky
RFERL
May 27 2015 Hunter Biden meets then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a former national
security adviser to Joe Biden who was promoted to the No. 2 job at State under then-Secretary
John Kerry.
JS
July 22 2015 Hunter Biden against meets with the State Department No. 2 Tony Blinken.
JS
July 31 2015 Ukraine's prosecutor general issues an arrest warrant against Zlochevsky.
RFERL
Sep 2015
Referring to the closed British case then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gives a
speech urging Ukrainian prosecutors to do more against corruption.
Guardian
Oct 8 2015 Then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland
testifies in Congress: "The Prosecutor General's Office has to be reinvented as an institution
that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off."
WaPo
Oct 17 2015 Shokin announces a joint investigation with Britain of the Zlochevsky
case. Interfax
Dec 7 2015 Joe Biden holds a
press conference in Kiev and announces $190 million to "fight corruption in law enforcement and
reform the justice sector."
WaPo
Dec 7/8 2015 According to his then-National Security Advisor Colin Kahl VP Biden
withholds the announcement of a $1 billion loan guarantee Ukraine was supposed to receive.
WaPo
Dec 8 2015 Joe Biden speaks in the Ukrainian parliament and decried the "cancer of
corruption" in the country. "The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform," he
noted.
WaPo
End of 2015 Shokin hands one case on Zlochevsky to the U.S. supported National
Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) Interfax
Jan 20 2016 Biden meets
Poroshenko in Davos, Switzerland, when he also presses "the need to continue to move forward on
Ukraine's anti-corruption agenda," according to a White House statement. Kahl said Biden at
that meeting reinforced the linkage between the loan guarantee and the necessary reforms.
WaPo
Feb 2 2016 Shokin confiscates several large properties and a Rolls-Royce Phantom owned
by Zlochevsky. Interfax
Feb 4 2016 First public
announcement of the confiscation of Zlochevsky's properties.
Interfax
Feb 4 2016 Hunter Biden
starts following Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken on Twitter.
JS
Feb 12 2016 Biden speaks to Poroshenko by phone. "The two leaders agreed on the
importance of unity among Ukrainian political forces to quickly pass reforms in line with the
commitments in its IMF program, including measures focused on rooting out corruption," the
White House said.
WaPo
Feb 16 2016 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says that he had advised Shokin to
step down. Interfax
Feb 16 2016 Poroshenko
announced he had asked Shokin to resign.
WaPo
Feb 18 2016 Another call
takes place between Biden and Poroshenko.
WaPo
Feb 19 2016 The presidential press secretary Sviatoslav Tseholko says that Shokin's
letter of resignation had arrived at the presidential administration. On the same day,
Poroshenko tables a motion in parliament to dismiss Shokin.
Interfax
Feb 19 2016 Poroshenko
announces he has received Shokin's resignation letter. It still required parliamentary
approval, and Shokin did not go away quietly.
WaPo
Feb 19 2016 Biden speaks separately with Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk.
WaPo
Feb 22/23 2016 Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies, a U.S. representative for
Burisma Holdings, seeks a meeting with then-Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli who
oversees international energy issues to discuss ending the corruption allegations against
Burisma.
JS
Feb 24 2016 A State Department email exchange under the subject line "Burisma" notes
that Karen Tramontano especially mentioned Hunter Biden while she tried to get the meeting.
JS
Mar 1 2016 Tramontano is scheduled to meet Novelli and that State Department officials
are scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev.
JS
Mar 2 2016 Hunter Biden's fellow board member at Burisma, Devon Archer, has a meeting
with Secretary of State John Kerry. Secretary Kerry's stepson, Christopher Heinz, had earlier
been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment
firm.
JS
Mar 16 2016 Reports emerged
that Shokin was back at work after having been on vacation.
WaPo
Mar 22 2016 Biden and Poroshenko speak again by phone.
WaPo
Mar 29 2016 The Ukrainian parliament, in a 289-to-6 vote, approves Shokin's dismissal.
WaPo
undated "Mr. Zlochevsky's allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin, the
prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought, according to people familiar with the situation."
NYT
Mar 31 2016
Poroshenko meets with Biden during a trip to Washington, and Biden emphasizes that the loan
guarantee was contingent on further reform progress beyond Shokin's removal.
WaPo
Apr 14 2016 Biden and Poroshenko have another call. Biden congratulates the president
on his new cabinet and "stressed the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General.
WaPo
May 12 2016 Poroshenko nominated Yuriy Lutsenko as the new prosecutor general.
WaPo
May 13 2016 In a phone call, Biden told Poroshenko he welcomed Lutsenko's appointment.
WaPo
Undated "Mr. Zlochevsky's representatives were pleased by the choice, concluding they
could work with Mr. Lutsenko to resolve the oligarch's legal issues, according to the people
familiar with the situation."
NYT
Jun 2016
Hunter Biden joins Zlochevsky at a Burisma organized event in Morocco.
Guardian
Aug 22 2016 Joe Biden tells the Atlantic how he blackmailed Poroshenko into
firing the "corrupt" Shokin.
Atlantic
Sep 2016Ukraine cancels arrest warrant against Zlochevsky and closes the case against him.Guardian
Jan 12 2017Ukraine's prosecutor closes the case against Burisma after the company
agrees to pay UAH 180 millions of tax liabilities.
Interfax
Jan 19 2017Burisma
announces a donation of between $100,000 and 249,999 to the Atlantic CouncilGuardian
Aug 2017U.S. supported National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) closes
its case against ZlochevskyInterfax
Oct 27 2017 Zlochevsky is estimated to have $535 million in assets, more than double than a year earlier.
Interfax
Jan 23 2018Joe Biden brags publicly how he blackmailed Poroshenko into firing Shokin.CFR
Feb 1 2018 After more than three years abroad Zlochevsky returns to Ukraine.
Interfax
May 14 2019 Ukrainian
Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko says that the Zlochevsky case was reopened "several months
ago". Interfax
Jul 2019 Shokin maintains
his suspicions about the vice president's motives, accusing Biden of promoting his dismissal
for personal reasons. He insists he had "no doubt" Biden wanted him gone in an effort to
protect his son's new employer.
ABCNews
Posted by b on November 5, 2019 at 20:13 UTC |
Permalink
Considering the deep peril the legitimacy of the Outlaw US Empire's electoral system enjoys
as Elizabeth Vos
reports, why put forth the effort to prize then reveal the truth of Ukrainegate or
Russiagate.
The DNC will forward whomever it chooses to face Trump in 2020 -- the court
determined that whomever the people choose through the primary and convention exercises
doesn't matter as DNC can legally negate that choice.
Now I don't mean to belittle the
great amount of effort b's done on those issues, but IMO the message within Vos's essay is
what must be addressed.
When put this way it is difficult to not see the corruption. How is Trump asking
Ukraine's new president to investigate this obvious corruption more of a crime than the
corruption that Trump is asking to be investigated? That will take some mental gymnastics for
the establishment's spinmeisters to explain.
Totally agree, but want to add one more important point: How is Trump's melding his
legitimate and personal interests together in a phone call also more serious than the
original war crime of overthrowing the legal Ukrainian government in an armed coup? Biden's
corruption is obvious upon logical review of the known facts, but along with ignoring this,
the US elites also completely ignore the serious crime of otherthrowing a government
(because, such things are not discussed in polite company, one supposes).
William Gruff | Nov 5 2019 20:45 utc | 2. Says "How is Trump asking Ukraine's new president
to investigate this obvious corruption more of a crime than the crime itself?"
No problem for the TDS afflicted sheeple. Not much different than the position of the
sheeple that the exposure of DNC machinations is the crime rather than the crimes of DNC
themselves.
thanks b... as far as crimes go, biden corrupt is small potatoes and ditto trumps.. the big
enchilada is the dynamic leading up to the coup of feb 23 2014.... that is what needs to be
examined and of course it won't be, as that would highlight just how corrupt the whole usa
system is here... that said, i agree with @1 karolf1 and @ 2 william gruffs comments.. in the
greater scheme of things though - meddling in a foreign country, whether it be an election or
outright war and everything in between is what the usa has excelled at for as long as i can
remember - 60's forward... they are one bullshite country with a bullshite msm completing the
propaganda loop that is on display 24/7... i am not sure what it takes to break it.. your
work certainly helps!
Biden son's case is more than demonstrated right now and, in itself, is not even that
impressive: it's just bread & butter patronage corruption, which happens all the time in
Western Democracies, at all countries, at all levels.
What's really impressive here is the scale, because an entire country was destroyed
overnight. I mean, if a man as powerful as a vice-POTUS is willing to destroy entire nations
just to give his son a sinecure, then no country is safe.
My thinking on the matter is that the Washington establishment is panicking over this
relatively small issue because, like pulling a loose end of yarn on a sweater, they fear the
whole cover story on the Ukraine covert actions will unravel if the Biden corruption
investigation continues.
The obvious explanation, for the way that the democrats have used all their energies to
ensure that the entirety of this sordid scandal is made known to the world is that the John
Birch Society entrists, such as the Clintons, are about ready to withdraw from the Democrats
altogether and so, like good arsonists, they have poured flammable, explosive material
everywhere, confident that a spark will ignite it.
In any case arguing that 'black is white' and 'up is down' is easy compared to convincing the
world that Biden, his son, Kerry and all are not totally corrupt.
According to Wikipedia, Vitaly Yarema was the Ukrainian Prosecutor
General from 19 June 2014 to 10 February 2015. He was nominated to the position by President
Petro Poroshenko.
A list of Prosecutor General title-holders is here at
this link if you need to refer to it. The odd thing though is that while Yarema was Prosecutor General, he was all very much for
bring Mykola Zlochevsky to justice in the London court (depending on who you
read , of course).
The U.K. asked Ukraine to investigate whether Burisma's founder had benefited from criminal
dealings with Sergei Kurchenko, a shadowy billionaire who acted as the alleged frontman for
the money of Viktor Yanukovych and his older son, Oleksander Yanukovych. Prosecutor General
Vityaly Yarema ordered Zlochevsky brought to court, which put him on what Ukrainians call
their "wanted list."
According to that Daily Beast source, Zlochevsky was on the "wanted list" in January
2015.
On reading that Guardian article which you cite, the thought occurred to me that
someone other than Yarema must have written and signed that letter sent from the
Prosecutor General's office to the UK court, which then ordered the case against Zlochevsky
to be dropped. That in itself would be worth an article, as the timeline seems to be a bit
confused: did Zlochevsky go on the "wanted list" before the letter was sent to the UK and the
money released or did he go on the "wanted list" AFTER the UK court dropped the case against
him and ordered the release of the $23 million?
I agree about the Voss article, but there is nothing new in it is there? The DNC 'defence'
has been in the public domain ever since it was first annunciated. As to the absolute scandal
of the disenfranchiement of 100,000 Democrats in Bernie's hometown, it was obvious on the
night that it was this which allowed HC to steal the New York Primary.
The problem was that the Sanders campaign seems to have done nothing about it- it is hard to
believe that, back in 2016, they were thinking of 2020 and running Sanders again.
Were not the White primaries, a DNC favourite at the time, banned on just these grounds that
public money and resources could not be used to disenfranchise large numbers of people?
You are right that the story, which reminds us that it was the democrats who invented dirty
tricks and the NY Democrats, who used to meet at Tammany Hall, were on the cutting edge of
electoral corruption, is one that cannot be too widely discussed. A discussion to be followed
by prison terms.
Once again this Ukraine story shows that its not the government, its not the structure of the
government, its not even the functions of the government, but instead its is the actors
that run the government and the actors that benefit from the government being run by the
actors-in-charge that make a strong case that an independent non governmental auditor is
needed (one paid from a % of the taxes collected but one that answers only to the HR courts).
So the government would not pay the auditors any salaries since the auditors are the
governed. In other words, any qualified voter would be an eligible Auditor. Such people
(auditors) would have the right to audit the-conduct of any person claiming or benefiting
from a government interest.
The independent HR court would hear all charges made by any HR auditor. All persons claiming
or benefiting in some way from a government interest would be subject to the jurisdiction of
the HR courts. The HR court would be empowered to hear a claim of wrongful behavior made
against any government person (elected, appointed, bureaucrats, military and contractors) and
if the court agrees substantive facts exist, then the court would assemble a case, impanel a
jury (from the ranks of the governed) and instruct that jury to hear the charges and to
develop the case, and to decide on the innocence or guilt of the person charged, and if
guilty then to decide on the penalty.
Important here is that the HR rights courts would hear cases against individuals that involve
corruption, fraud, theft, self dealing, negligence and treason.. the HR rights courts are not
government, they are courts made up of judges and juries that are appointed by the governed
people.
Thanks for your reply! Did you note the number of people who committed multiple felonies
that have yet to be prosecuted years now after-the-fact? The lack of justice being applied to
those who broke the law and violated the public trust is also a big issue itself that I
mentioned on the week in review. The bottom line: No democracy + no justice = no legitimacy,
which appears to be the main point. I just finished listening to
this interview with Dr. Hudson where in the last few minutes he says the DNC in 2020 aims
at electing Donald Trump, which seems to be the consensus arrived at by us barflies and with
which I agree. What Hudson doesn't touch on, nor is he asked, is what can be done to overturn
the Reagan Revolution which installed the current policy direction, although we can make a
few assumptions based on his preferences for Sanders and Gabbard and the movement to deal
with student debt relief.
My comment to the article wasn't optimistic and has yet to be posted. I don't really have
anything of substance to add to what b's proving about Biden as I've already called him out
for his Capital Crimes and the usual corruption. Maybe I ought to throw up my arms in disgust
and adopt a Don't Worry; Be Happy/What, Me Worry? escapist attitude and ignore it all for my
remaining days and party like it's 1999. Too bad Styx didn't offer a solution to having Too
Much Time on My Hands aside for that being a calamity for my sanity.
General-Prosecutor Victor Shokin was being pressured -- mostly by the USA -- to prosecute
corruption more effectively.
In response to such pressure, Shokin initiated an investigation of Mykola Zlochevsky on
October 17, 2015. It seems that Britain had established an investigation of Zlochevsky in
2014, had suspended that investigation on January 21, 2015, but then resumed that
investigation in October 2015. Shokin joined that British investigation on October 17,
2015.
It seems further that the USA eventually took unknown actions to prevent that joint
British-Ukrainian investigation of Zlochevsky.
On December 7-8, 2015, Vice President Biden indicated that a large US grant of aid money
would be conditional. However, the conditions seem to be secret.
In this situation, before the end of December 2015, General-Prosecutor Shokin transfered
the Zlochevsky investigation to the so-called National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine
(NABU), which essentially was a creature of the US Government.
The situation seemed to remain quiet through the month of January 2016. On February 2,
however, Shokin seized some of Zlochevsky's property, even though the NABU was supposed to be
managing the Zlochevsky case.
Sholin's seizure of Zlochevsky's property on February 2 sparked a US-Ukraine crisis. The
US (i.e. the Bidens) felt it had been double-crossed by Shokin.
Although the property seizure occurred on February 2, it was not announced publicly until
February 4. On that same day, Hunter Biden began following the Twitter account of US Deputy
Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who managed Ukrainian affairs. (I wonder if Blinken
communicated in code to Hunter Biden by means of Twitter.)
On February 12, Vice President Joe Biden talked with Ukrainian President Poroshenko by
telephone and ordered the firing of Shokin. The firing essentially happened later that same
day.
Joe Biden's story about waiting for an airplane due to take off in six hours might be
false or might refer to an airplane taking off in some country other than Ukraine.
Several (numerous?) topics so qualify. Either they're scarcely hinted at, or the lies and
misdirections prevail. Applause for anyone brave enough to name the first three forbidden
items that come to mind.
Are vlochevsky, kolomoisky, and pinchbuk partners in crime?
$1.8 billion in imf loans "disappeared" in koilomoiski's
privat bank. After that privat bank was nationalized and kolomoiski
fled to the us. Was this how vlochevsky's asets doubled? Coincidentally
the chinese firm investment in rosemont seneca was over $1 billion. Some
have speculated that the bidens could have become billionaires from this.
Was the chinese firm a pass through for the embezzled $1.8 billion imf loan?
Come on' folks, there are no Dems, there are no Repubs, there are no Independants ,only reps
who take the $ offered by the wealthy. In the U$A today, the party of $ owns the system. Case
closed. We get who they want. The rules have been changed to favor them. Vote if you want,
it's good therapy,but, the system is rigged.
The latest report from journalist John Solomon reveals that the Obama State Department saw
Joe and Hunter Biden's brewing Burisma scandal as a "Biden problem" during the 2016 US
election, and specificialy coached now-recalled US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch on how
to answer awkward questions about it. [.]
Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the
Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked
to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question
about "Burisma and Hunter Biden."
In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch's Senate
confirmation hearing, the department's Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to
stick to a simple answer.
"Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President's son, serving on the board
of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?," the draft Q&A asked.
The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: "For questions on Hunter Biden's role in Burisma, I
would refer you to Vice President Biden's office."[.]
The Media has created a story whose purpose it is to keep the public focused on some small
details of goings-on in Ukraine mostly since 2014 and NOT the fact that this is a clear
example of a US backed coup which destabilized the country enough to allow the US Corporate
jackals in to strip off the booty. THAT is what all the participants in this scheme want to
keep secret. Why? Because the American citizens benefit not one bit from any of this. Change
will require something major to trigger it.
I agree with previous posters that the real crime was the 2014 coup, and people like Hillary,
Victoria Noland and Biden are the greater criminals. But let's not make this a Dem vs Rep
thing. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war in Iraq to steal their oil. Both war parties
supported Poroshenko and unending anti-Russian invective. It is from that mindset that they
argue over whether conditioning military aid to Ukraine constitutes quid pro quo.
In the meantime I wonder if Zelensky, who was elected over Porky with an end the war
platform, is thinking "Why do these idiots think they can negotiate by offering me something
I absolutely do not want?"
"Remember when voters in 2016 were like 'can we please have even one major candidate who
doesn't have something seriously wrong with them?', and the entire US political system was
all 'LOL nope,' and then nobody burned that system to the ground and flushed it down the
toilet? Good times."
Except IMO there were thousands of people willing and ready to burn down the system just
as there are now--that's what ought to happen to things that are corrupt: they get exposed as
illegitimate and get torched by the public is a fit of righteous outrage and exact justice
collectively.
But that didn't happen within the Outlaw US Empire in 2016, nor did it happen when Obama
backstabbed millions, broke the law he was supposed to enforce and gave billions to
fraudulent banksters. Most all political riots--not police riots--during my life were against
racism and its associated injustices long ongoing. Within the Outlaw US Empire historically,
corruption in politics is as traditional as apple pie, meaning the people are mostly inured
to its occurrence. As with customary bribery in some nations, political corruption is seen as
a normal happening usually of little consequence until something morally repulsive occurs to
raise awareness again. The problem of course is that corruption is always morally
repulsive. Perhaps such leniency says more about a nation's public than anything else--tons
of corruption's tolerated just as the killing of millions of innocents overseas is
tolerated/abided/excused. Guess it's time for some Victory Gin as there's not much more to
say.
I think you've left out the Vietnam era, karlof1 - there were certainly riots against that
war plus there was l968 in Chicago Democratic Convention. I'd call both of those political.
And I would call the Occupy movement at least anti-political in its focus on the banksters.
Plus protests against the invasion of Iraq. Those two latter 'thrusts' by the citizenry were
indeed handled oppressively and not covered adequately or at all in the case of protests
against the invasion and/or other political events. Just because they weren't covered doesn't
mean they didn't happen or weren't part of the general malaise. Trump got elected on that
premise. And just because you don't see it on TV doesn't mean the general public isn't
totally unhappy with the way things are.
Since the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, the international energy group
Burisma has been providing systematic and comprehensive assistance to the defenders of the
Fatherland. Among the military, whom the Burisma Group has supported since 2014, is the Poltava
Special Purpose Police Battalion, which has repeatedly served in the war zone in the
Donbass. from one of their press releases -
being the good nazis biden requested of them..
AFAIK, Burisma supported regaining Donbas because that's where the fracking opportunity
is.
Who else was an ardent supporter of regaining the Donbas? Kolomoyskyi, who is also
militantly pro-Israel, and is rumored to be the real owner (or part owner?) of
Burisma.
Biden is also a Zionist
and what his son made is peanuts compared to what Biden has/could make if he plays along.
Obama is said to have made $70 million after leaving the Presidency and has just bought a $15
million home. And where else is a fracking opportunity sought by a corrupt company that is connected to
corrupt politicians? Golan Heights and Genie Energy..
I liked Dr. Hudson's remarks concerning that DNC's quest for a candidate most sure to lose
to Trump. This of course accounts for their hysterical fear of Tulsi Gabbard, as she is the
only one who would be certain to beat him! The DNC will probably be willing, this time
around, to let Bernie sheepdog on into the general election if that's what it takes to stop
Tulsi. It's very sad to see the would be left media falling in line with the
Jacobin/Intercept/Omidyar psyops regime. The one slim hope is that actual voters not
controlled by any of the usual gatekeepers might overwhelm the DNC rigging machine in early
primaries. I'm encouraged whenever I'm out on the real street I frequently overhear people
mentioning her name and passersby chime in. Don't hear a thing about any of the mediocrities
supported by the DNC and the press.
From the Chris Hedges article you linked to: "The deep state committed the greatest
strategic blunder in American history when it invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq."
The sentence quoted is an example of the murky self-assured but dubious 'wordscape' that
we are so inundated by. This is not to imply that the author doesn't make many sensible
points in this particular article, or to dismiss his work more generally. In my opinion he
does lots of good work.
Note the use of the cryptic abstraction "deep state" to describe the 'perpetrator' of the
'invasions and occupations'.
Note the use of the abstract term "greatest" to describe the "strategic blunder". One can
declare without deserving even a raised eyebrow 'that was the greatest day of my life!' or
that was greatest number of apples I've ever eaten at one sitting, but never again!" But how
does one calibrate those two wars of aggression as the "greatest" whatever?
Note that these particlular wars of aggression, the supreme crime, and both not
coincidentally based on lies upon lies, have been verbally downgraded to "invasions". As in,
say, the Normandy invasion, or an invasion of grasshoppers? And all the horrors that followed
the wars of aggression are condensed by the summary word "occupation". Many of us have
occupations.
And for who were these "strategic blunders?" From the perspective of the MIC, and PNAC,
and 'strategic positioning' re Earthly heroin flows, say, perhaps these were "strategic
blessings". Or even diabolically cunning?
The point I'm making here is that even in the 'good articles', even in 'noble efforts' its
pretty hard not to slip into, what? Let's call it, Empire Speak. Or is that Swamp Speak?
@ Robert Snefjella with the analysis of the wording of the Chris Hedges article that ben
linked to
Nice work but I want to add that the real reason for going after Iraq and Afghanistan was
because they were not yet owned and subservient to the Western private banking cult.
Like Libya before Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton served her masters.
@ 42 Rboert
Personally, I don't care to dissect Hedges word choices. Those invasion were the greatest
mistake, because they broke the US public image, its military, and its economy. No, not
directly, but those overextensions were the watershed moments. While it has been quite
lucrative for certain parties since then, it has been a huge quagmire and literal sand in the
military's gears. It also destroyed the invincible image of the US military. Trillions of
dollars, thousands of troops, millions of civilians and yet we are all negotiating to stay in
Afghanistan against troops with tire scandals, no air force, and very limited mechanization.
@ 43 psycho I agree that the banking, and gold in particular, were reason for destroying
the countries. Along with human trafficking, Sumerian artifacts, takfiri recruitment,
etc.
Exactly, JR. The very limited amount of reporting on that quickly led to Jewish oligarchs
and that has been studiously ignored since. Since then it has been an endless shit show of
Biden's corruption and how the US foreign policy is handled with everyone trying to thinly
slice the corruption of DC so as to only smear the other side.
There are some
sites that think about these things.
We've gone through a lot of news sources to see if we couldn't figure out what is going on
in Ukraine as to why the Democrats, led by Jewish congressional representatives Adam Schiff
(D-Calif.) who leads the impeachment committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who is on the
Judiciary Committee, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Eliot
Engel (D-New York) along with 21 other Jewish Democratic congressional representatives all
calling for the impeachment of President Trump because of his phone call with President
Zelensky of Ukraine.
This site seems devoted to looking for links of this nature, but is often sketchy IMO. Where is O when you need an obsessive analysis.
So if the Biden's and Rosemont Seneca were in Ukraine stealing IMF funds,
what were they stealing in China?
Do they have no shame? Or is that Whitey Bulger's clan ethics at play.
Is all currency ok as long as its stolen?
How much bitcoin can they steal and convert or is that story yet to be told?
That is the oldest trick in the book: owning a company as a subsidiary of another company
that you own. The wonder is that Kolomoisky didn't insert another layer of another subsidiary
between Privat Group and Burisma Holdings to cover his tracks even more.
The largest private gas producer in Ukraine is establishing relations with the new US
administration.
The Atlantic Council and the Burisma Group, Ukraine's largest independent gas producer,
have signed a partnership agreement. The Atlantic Council, with the support of Burisma,
will develop transatlantic relations programs with a focus on energy security in Europe and
the world, the company said in an official press release.
For the Burisma Group, this is a new stage in the development of cooperation between the
United States and European countries together with such an influential world institution as
the Atlantic Council.
Relations with Ukraine and future programs with the Burisma Group will be overseen by an
authoritative diplomat, US Ambassador to Ukraine (2003-2006) and Director of the Dinu
Patriciu Eurasia Center (structure under the Atlantic Council) John Herbst.
"Support and cooperation with Burisma will allow us to expand our program development
activities in Ukraine and create new platforms for discussing important and relevant
issues," said John Herbst.
It is symbolic that the collaboration between the Atlantic Council and the Burisma Group
coincided with the launch of the new US Presidential Administration Donald Trump. According
to experts, this will allow for more efficient implementation of new joint projects in the
energy sector and gain support from one of the most respected and influential organizations
in the United States. The conclusion of an agreement between Burisma and the Atlantic
Council and the full implementation of joint projects became possible after all charges
against Burisma Group and its owner Nikolai Zlochevsky were dropped.
According to Mykola Zlochevsky, president of the Burisma Group, the Atlantic Council
plays a key role in Ukraine in building transatlantic relations, democracy and energy
security. "Ambassador Herbst has been and continues to be the lawyer of Ukraine, and
Burisma is pleased to be able to support the work of the ambassador and the Atlantic
Council," said Nikolai Zlochevsky.
The Atlantic Council (US Atlantic Council) is the largest American non-governmental
analytical center for international relations of the Atlantic community, headquartered in
Washington. It is one of the most influential non-governmental organizations in the United
States, operates ten regional centers and functional programs that deal with issues of
international security and global economic development.
The Atlantic Council and Burisma Holdings working together!
As I wrote in April 2015, there are very strong indications that Foreign Affairs
Representative for the EU Catherine Ashton, IMF boss Christine Lagarde and Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland provided the united
US/EU media front for the Ukraine coup, with Biden, Kerry and John McCain too publicity
hungry to remain in the background like they were almost certainly supposed to.
https://bryanhemming.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/double-double-toil-and-trouble-the-cauldron-of-kiev/
Thank you for that link. Rolling up the naked capitalism story is
this rather more profound analysis from the Saker. It is also linked to in the abel
danger site I referenced earlier.
Something that really shocks me about Ukraine is like the video about the kitsch palace of
the Zlochevsky guy, the neighbors on the other side of the river complain about not being
able to swim across anymore, as they used to do, but the whole interview is in
Russian¡¡¡¡, I mean, it is supossed to be Kiev, not the east and
everybody speaks in a language that does not have official status anymore.
It is like a
virtual country that wants to impose a distorted view of itself. Just imagine for a minute if
California became independent and all of the sudden the official language is Spanish, all
relations at schools, hospitals, state centers, banks, etc. etc. are to be held in Spanish
only. Well, that's happening in that new "liberated" for democracy country, the priceless
work of Nulands, Bidens et al, plus all the killing, that goes without saying.
The same case happens in the UK (with Corbyn). They want the policies, but they don't want
"socialism".
This is the great contradiction of the USA and other First World countries: they know they
need to reform, but they don't want to give up the good things that capitalist imperialism
gave them. Therefore, they want the best of both worlds.
Great, true comment, vk. The people of America are willing participants in the American
Dream, aka The American Death Cult. Let's give the American People full credit for the horror
show they've inflicted on the world. They willfully chose this and continue to choose this
and that is why they embrace horrific figures like Trump, Hillary, Biden, etc..
But the American People do have a better angel. They also want community. They want to see
themselves as individually and collectively good. They want to believe that they are on the
light side of the Force, not the dark side of the Force, so to speak. How it plays out is
that they want the elites to tell them lies, sweet little lies...
For me the turning point of America, at least of the America that I've seen, was the Iraq
War. The Libya War can be seen as a second stage of that war; same with the Syria War. It's
not that such acts of global mayhem have been worse than what America has done before. It's
that the American System has embraced the evil more knowingly than ever before, it seems to
me. No one can credibly claim that they didn't see the US knowingly lie its way into war vs.
Iraq. No one can credibly call that a just war.
when a corrupt system lies to itself about its corruption there is some hope. When it
knows it is corrupt and embraces this anyway then there is no hope. The Ukraine controversey
we are seeing play its way out now typifies and illustrates this state of affairs. What Trump
did was brutal and corrupt, yet his fans continue to defend him and even to defend this. What
Biden did was far far more brutal and corrupt, yet the Dems continue to defend him and what
he did. Biden helped plunge a country into chaos and then feasted on the corpse. The Ukraine
controversey is a journey into the heart of our darkness.
We desperately need a bringer of light. Could it be Tulsi Gabbard? Perhaps, if she has the
guts to turn away from Indian and Israeli nationalism and if the people choose to support her
truth telling. It's a long shot, but she might be our last hope.
As for Biden? Well I suppose he's a placeholder for Hillary Clinton.
The USA is a capitalist society. However, as Marx demonstrated in his opus, the
development of capitalism tends to socialism. Socialism cannot be born out of
manorialism or antiquity, but only from capitalism.
The American elite knows this, so they came up with a very interesting strategy: they keep
the rest of the world down, in a permanent state of destruction and rebuild (groundhog day
mode); and, at home, they try to preserve a minimum of industrial dynamism and life quality
for their masses with "domesticated and restricted socialism". FDR did it during 1938-1944
and it worked; after the end of Bretton Woods and the establishment of the Dollar Standard,
they adopted restricted socialism in a specific sector -- the Military -- in order to
maintain its industrial and innovation capacity going in face of its inexorable tendency of
"financialization".
Although the Pentagon by itself is socialist, the USA remains capitalist because of the
way the Pentagon relates to the rest of the nation: it takes the infinite pool of taxpayer
money (so the profit motivation is removed) but they give it back to private contractors, who
are capitalist and thus have the profit motivation. Taxpayer money is then converted into
money-capital through a socialist institution.
However, this comes at a price for the capitalists: as profits go down over time (as Marx
also scientifically demonstrated), the share of the Pentagon on the overall American economy
rises, thus rising the "socialist piece of the pie". Heterodox estimates put the Pentagon
social architecture at 10% of the American economy; most still put it at around 5%, and some
of then put it at an insignificant 3%. If think that, if you take out the ficitious part of
the capitalist economy (i.e. Wall St.), the figures are much closer to the 10%, probably even
more.
@56 -- "... it [Pentagon] takes the infinite pool of taxpayer money (so the profit motivation
is removed) but they give it back to private contractors, who are capitalist and thus have
the profit motivation. Taxpayer money is then converted into money-capital through a
socialist institution."
State-base 'capitalism' just like China!
The only additional point is that a sizable % of the socialist $$$'s (more Fed than
taxpayer these days) also flow from said funds into lobbying and then into the pockets of the
politician du jour. The corrupt Clinton's were not the exception -- rather the rule. Was this
systemic corruption not referred to previously as the military-industrial-congressional
complex?
No, it would be China if the contractors themselves were owned by the Government.
China is pretty much the polar opposite of the USA: it has a socialist system with some
restricted pockets of capitalism. Capitalism there is restricted to the special economic
zones, and private enterprise is restricted to non-strategic sectors.
That's why China's tax rates are actually lowering, not rising.
@2 If you recall the media explained that Joe Biden's corruption is really Joe Biden fighting
corruption. They create their own reality. We are just supposed to swallow it. The CFR video
doesn't matter. Just like Victoria Nuland's call. Snowden's revelations, or the volumes of
wikileaks documents proving the enormity of US self described "elite" corruption
I'd written a long detailed reply that I was about to post when my computer locked-up and
I lost my entire effort, and that ended my contributions yesterday. Of the many observations
I made, this IMO was the most important--When MLK was murdered, blacks nationwide rioted; but
when JFK and RFK were murdered, nothing of the sort occurred. I'll also reinforce the notion
of people rioting as the vast majority of what's deemed a riot by Media was in fact a Police
Riot as they run amok amidst peaceful protesters just as they would do against striking
workers, of which there's a long bloody history of massacres.
"... Sperry quotes Fred Fleitz, a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias." ..."
"... why have the corporate media declined to name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed, the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax" might do, even if Trump has made the term his own. ..."
"... There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev. ..."
Ten days ago
Real Clear Investigations suggested that the "whistleblower" whose "complaint" last August set the impeachment probe in
motion was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella. And who is Eric Ciaramella? It turns out he is a young but seasoned
Democratic Party apparatchik conducting his spookery on American soil.
Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish
national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born
Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate
Donald Trump.
For good measure, Paul Sperry's perspicacious reporting in Real Clear Investigations reveals that Ciaramella conferred
with the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Democrat leading the impeachment process, a month prior to filing his "complaint" to
the CIA's inspector general.
This information comes after Schiff stated on the record that the staff of the House Intelligence Committee, which he heads, had
no contact with the whistleblower. Schiff has since acknowledged the Ciaramella connection.
Phantom in Plain Sight
No wonder no one in Washington will name this phantom in plain sight. The impeachment probe starts to take on a certain reek.
It starts to look as if contempt for Trump takes precedence over democratic process -- a dangerous priority. Sperry quotes Fred
Fleitz, a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows.
The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to
name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed,
the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax"
might do, even if Trump has made the term his own.
There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that
may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of
Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated
coup in Kiev.
There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon the
pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports published
last week make this plain by any reasonable measure.
"Meet the witnesses: Diplomats start off impeachment hearings" [Associated Press].
"Diplomats and career government officials, they're little known outside professional circles,
but they're about to become household names testifying in the House impeachment inquiry . The witnesses will
tell House investigators -- and Americans tuning into the live public hearings -- what they
know about President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine First up will be William Taylor, the
charge d'affaires in Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy Assistant Secretary in the European
and Eurasian Bureau, both testifying on Wednesday." • You can read the full article for
the bios. First, William Taylor:
"Op-Ed in Novoye Vremya by CDA Taylor: Ukraine's Committed Partner" [ U.S.
Embassy in Ukraine ]. From November 10, 2019, the penultimate paragraph. I've helpfully
underlined the dogwhistles:
But as everyone who promotes democracy knows, strengthening and protecting democratic
values is a constant process, requiring persistence and steady work by both officials and
ordinary citizens. As in all democracies, including the United States, work
remains in Ukraine, especially to strengthen rule of law and to hold
accountable those who try to subvert Ukraine's structures to serve their personal aims,
rather than the nation's interests .
It's kind of Taylor to let the Ukrainians know who's really in charge of foreign policy,
isn't it? Now, Kent–
"George Kent Opening Statement At Impeachment Hearing: Concerned About
"Politically-Motivated Investigations" [
RealClearPolitics ]. From the full text as prepare for delivery:
Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to
flee to Moscow.
By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against British
imperial might without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of
Lafayette's organized assistance to General George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul
Jones' navy , Congress has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five
years in desperately needed train and equip security assistance to Ukraine.
Similar to von Steuben training colonials at Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied
trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv near the Polish border, and
elsewhere.
Are these people out of their minds? See, e.g., "America's Collusion With Neo-Nazis" [
The Nation ]:
Not even many Americans who follow international news know the following, for example:
That the snipers who killed scores of protestors and policemen on Kiev's Maidan Square in
February 2014, thereby triggering a "democratic revolution" that overthrew the elected
president, Viktor Yanukovych, and brought to power a virulent anti-Russian, pro-American
regime -- it was neither democratic nor a revolution, but a violent coup unfolding in the
streets with high-level support -- were sent not by Yanukovych, as is still widely reported,
but instead almost certainly by the neofascist organization Right Sector and its
co-conspirators.
§ That the pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa
shortly later in 2014 reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during
World War II has been all but deleted from the American mainstream narrative even though it
remains a painful and revelatory experience for many Ukrainians.
(To be fair, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis we supported weren't slaveholders, unlike to many of
our own Founders. So there's that.)
The Hearings should be in a room that lets in sunlight, that universal disinfectant. Make
the Front Row Kid Careerists sit by the windows.
Thus far, my main reaction is that the State Department needs to be shaken up to get rid of
those entrenched FRK'ing Careerists and to bring in some accountability. Inspector General
positions and functions should not be optional at the whim of some SoS or other.
Not change for its own sake, just bringing things out of the shadows. In keeping with my
light theme, a Sunset Provision would help, too. That is one step toward eliminating the
hearsay, innuendo and nonsense suppression of Due Process as that is anti-Constitutional. The
people, including back-row, dropouts and all, deserve better from their government.
"... So the Ukrainians traded their corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with it). ..."
"... Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down (American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"). ..."
"to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign policy and
resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true
offense is proposing to renovate a foreign policy framework that has been more or less
untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation)."
This may be even worse than Lawrence depicts. It is clear that Vindman in his opening
remarks made it clear that the consensus policy of experts (like John Bolton) had been
following an agenda from the Obama administration (or before, but implemented under Obama,
Biden and Nuland) and it is verboten to change anything, despite constitutionally these
people at best only having advisory roles to the President (and constitutionally the
President can ask for their opinions in writing; CYA even back then!) The Ukrainian Americans
involved in the coup (national security from Vindman's perspective) are deeply committed
since 2014, and they expect to reap the benefits with no interference from Trump. And the
Democrats/ Ukraine-Americans "running the show" are probably much more corrupt than
Ukrainians governing their country before 2014.
I have started Oliver Bullough's "Money Land" and was aghast at the luxury items
Yanukovich had stolen through corruption and accumulated at his many properties. Surely with
so much money going to corrupt Yanukovich and his henchmen, the coup would have been a
blessing for the Ukrainian people! Right? I was shocked to find that after the overthrow of
Yanukovich in 2014, the median per capita household income in Ukraine, which had risen
steadily from $2032 in 2010 to $2601 in 2013, had dropped over 50% to $1110 to $1135 in 2015
and 2016, and has only risen to $1694 in 2018 (ceicdata.com).
So the Ukrainians traded their
corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt
neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their
pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with
it).
Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such
bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in
loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in
skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down
(American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman").
"... Will the Democratic Party, this time in open collusion with the intelligence apparatus, succeed in its second attempt to depose President Donald Trump in what might fairly be called a bloodless coup? Whatever the outcome of the thus-far-farcical impeachment probe, which is to be conducted publicly as of Wednesday, did the president use his office to pressure Ukraine in behalf of his own personal and political interests? Did Trump, in his fateful telephone conversation last July 25 with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, put U.S. national security at risk, as is alleged? ..."
"... All good questions. Here is another: Will Joe Biden, at present the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, get away with what is almost certain to prove his gross corruption and gross abuse of office when he carried the Ukraine portfolio while serving as vice president under Barack Obama? ..."
"... Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate Donald Trump. ..."
"... Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed, the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax" might do, even if Trump has made the term his own. ..."
"... There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev. ..."
"... There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon the pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports published last week make this plain by any reasonable measure. ..."
Now that "Russiagate" has failed and "
Ukrainegate " neatly takes its
place, many questions arise.
Will the Democratic Party, this time in open collusion with the intelligence apparatus, succeed in its second attempt to depose
President Donald Trump in what might fairly be called a bloodless coup? Whatever the outcome of the thus-far-farcical impeachment
probe, which is
to be conducted publicly as of Wednesday, did the president use his office to pressure Ukraine in behalf of his own personal
and political interests? Did Trump, in his fateful telephone conversation last July 25 with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president,
put U.S. national security at risk, as is alleged?
All good questions. Here is another: Will Joe Biden, at present the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination,
get away with what is almost certain to prove his gross corruption and gross abuse of office when he carried the Ukraine portfolio
while serving as vice president under Barack Obama?
Corollary line of inquiry: Will the corporate media, The New York Times in the lead, get away with self-censoring what is now
irrefutable evidence of the impeachment probe's various frauds and corruptions? Ditto in the Biden case: Can the Times and the media
that faithfully follow its lead continue to disregard accumulating circumstantial evidence of Biden's guilt as he appears to have
acted in the interest of his son Hunter while the latter sat on the board of one of Ukraine's largest privately held natural gas
producers?
Innuendo & Interference
It is not difficult to imagine that Trump presented Zelensky with his famous quid pro quo when they spoke last summer: Open an
investigation into Biden père et fils and I will release $391 million in military aid and invite you to the White House. Trump seems
to be no stranger to abuses of power of this sort. But the impeachment probe has swiftly run up against the same problem that sank
the good ship Russiagate: It has produced no evidence. Innuendo and inference, yes. Various syllogisms, yes. But no evidence.
There is none in the transcript of the telephone exchange. Zelensky has flatly stated that there was no quid pro quo. The witnesses
so far called to testify have had little to offer other than their personal opinions, even if Capitol Hill Democrats pretend these
testimonies are prima facie damning. And the witnesses are to one or another degree of questionable motives: To a one, they appear
to be Russophobes who favor military aid to Ukraine; to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign
policy and resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true offense is proposing to renovate
a foreign policy framework that has been more or less untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation).
Ten days ago
Real Clear Investigations suggested that the "whistleblower" whose "complaint" last August set the impeachment probe in motion
was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella. And who is Eric Ciaramella? It turns out he is a young but seasoned Democratic
Party apparatchik conducting his spookery on American soil.
Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish
national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born
Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate
Donald Trump.
For good measure, Paul Sperry's perspicacious reporting in Real Clear Investigations reveals that Ciaramella conferred with the
staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Democrat leading the impeachment process, a month prior to filing his "complaint" to the CIA's
inspector general.
This information comes after Schiff stated on the record that the staff of the House Intelligence Committee, which he heads, had
no contact with the whistleblower. Schiff has since acknowledged the Ciaramella connection.
Phantom in Plain Sight
No wonder no one in Washington will name this phantom in plain sight. The impeachment probe starts to take on a certain reek.
It starts to look as if contempt for Trump takes precedence over democratic process -- a dangerous priority. Sperry quotes Fred Fleitz,
a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York
Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to
name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed,
the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax"
might do, even if Trump has made the term his own.
There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that
may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of
Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated
coup in Kiev.
There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon
the pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports
published last week make this plain by any reasonable measure.
'Bursimagate'
John Solomon, a singularly competent follower of Russiagate and Ukrainegate, published
a report last Monday exposing Hunter Biden's extensive contacts with the Obama State Department in the early months of 2016.
Two developments were pending at the time. They lie at the heart of what we may well call "Burismagate."
One, the Obama administration had committed to providing Ukraine with $1 billion in loan guarantees. In a December 2015 address
to the Rada, Ukraine's legislature, V–P Biden withheld an apparently planned announcement of the credit facility.
Two, coincident with Hunter Biden's numerous conferences at the State Department, Ukraine's prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,
was swiftly advancing a corruption investigation into Burisma's oligarchic owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was by early 2016 living
in exile. Just prior to Biden's spate of visits to Foggy Bottom, Shokin had confiscated several of Zlochevsky's properties -- a clear
sign that he was closing in. Joe Biden wanted Shokin fired. He is, of course,
famously on the record boasting of his threat [starts at
52.00 in video below]to withhold the loan guarantee as a means to getting this done. Shokin was in short order dismissed, and the
loan guarantee went through.
Solomon documents his report with memos he obtained via the Freedom of Information Act earlier this year. These add significantly
to the picture. "Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during
the 2016 election cycle," he writes, "including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor
investigating his son's company for corruption."
Last Tuesday, a day after Solomon published his report, Moon of Alabama , the much-followed web publication, posted a granularly
researched and well-sourced
timeline of the events surrounding Shokin's dismissal at Vice President Biden's request. This is the most complete chronology
of the Burismagate story yet available.
In an ethical judicial system, it or something like it would now sit on a prosecutor's desk. There is no suggestion in the Moon
of Alabama's timeline that Shokin had shelved his investigation into Burisma by the time Biden exerted pressure to get him sacked,
as Biden's defenders assert. Just the opposite appears to be the true case: The timeline indicates Shokin was about to pounce. Indeed
Shokin said so under oath in an Austrian
court case, testifying that he was fired because of Biden's pressure not to conduct the probe.
It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence that Joe Biden misused his office in behalf of his son's business
interests simply because there has been no investigation. Given what is beginning to emerge, however, the need for one can no longer
be in doubt. Can Democrats and the media obscure indefinitely what now amounts to very strong circumstantial evidence against Biden?
We live in a time when the corporate media make as much effort to hide information as they do to report it. But as in the case
of Ciaramella's identity, it is unlikely these myriad omissions can be sustained indefinitely -- especially if Biden wins the Democratic
nomination next year. Forecast: If only because of Burismagate, Joe Biden will never be president.
As everyone in Washington seems to understand, it is highly unlikely Trump will be ousted via an impeachment trial: The Republican-controlled
Senate can be counted on to keep him in office. Whatever Trump got up to with Zelensky, there is little chance it will prove sufficient
to drive him from office. As to the charge that Trump's dealings with the Ukrainian president threatened national security, let us
allow this old chestnut to speak for itself.
Price of Irresponsible Theatrics
This leaves us to reckon the price our troubled republic will pay for months of irresponsible theatrics that are more or less
preordained to lead nowhere.
More questions. What damage will the Democrats have done when Ukrainegate draws to a close (assuming it does at some point)? What
harm has come to U.S. political institutions, governing bodies, judiciary and media? The corporate press has been profligately careless
of its already questionable credibility during the years of Russiagate and now Ukrainegate. Can anyone argue there is no lasting
price to pay for this?
More urgently, what do the past three years of incessant efforts to unseat a president tell us about the power of unelected constituencies?
The CIA is now openly operating on American soil in clear breach of its charter and U.S. law. There is absolutely no way this can
be questioned. We must now contemplate the frightening similarities Russiagate and Ukrainegate share with the agency's classic coup
operations abroad: Commandeering the media, stirring discontent with the leadership, pumping up the opposition, waving false flags,
incessant disinformation campaigns: Maybe it was fated that what America has been doing abroad the whole of the postwar era would
eventually come home.
What, at last, must we conclude about the ability of any president (of any stripe) to effect authentic change when our administrative
state -- "deep," if you like -- opposes it?
"... I might have to disagree with Vindman being labelled 'a bureaucrat among bureaucrats'. I would judge that his allegiances lay elsewhere and by that I do not mean the dual loyalty to the Ukraine, even though he appears to be acting in the roll of Kiev's man in Washington. I suppose that you would say that he is a member of the deep state and the policies that they formulate with little regard to who is in power. ..."
"... Burisma is just one of numerous examples of the payoffs and shady deals that poison the American political system and disgust citizens. Schiff has been given the impossible task of trying to defend that against mounting evidence of corruption. How can he or anyone else rationalize that little gas board activity, or countless others including those benefiting those people related to elected officials across the aisle. ..."
"... One of the wonderful aspects of Empire is that you get to house all the right-wing exiles from around the world. Whether it's Batista-ites from Cuba, Curveballs from Iraq, rich, right-wing "refugees" from Chavismo in South America or Ukrainians like Vindman. They're happy to use the host country to further a color revolution back home, and the CIA is happy to use them as cover for another Empire resource grab. ..."
Ilargi: Vindman, the
Expert Posted on November 13, 2019
by Yves Smith
Yves here. While the main source for this piece on Alexander Vindman is Byron York of the
Washington Examiner, bear in mind that the Examiner is a non-crazy right-leaning site and has
even broken some important stories. It is telling that there are so few people on the left who
have the patience and constitutional fortitude to pick through the impeachment evidence
carefully, see what it amounts to and withstand the vitriol if what they find is not what Team
Dem insists is there.
And that's before we get to our regular lament: why are the Dems choosing a line of inquiry
which is a hairball (albeit less of one than Russiagate) and also has the Dems taking the
position that the President is not in charge of foreign policy, and should defer to the CIA and
other non-accountable insiders? Why not go after emoluments, which is in the Constitution as a
Presidential no-no, where Trump has clearly abused repeatedly (you need go no further than the
guest list in his DC hotel) and therefore easy to prove, and would have the added benefit of
allowing Team Dem to rummage around in his finances?
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
Let's see what shape I can give this. I was reading a piece by Byron York that has the first
good read-out I've seen of the October 29 deposition by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman,
self-labeled no. 1 Ukraine expert at the National Security Counsel, and I want to share that in
a summarized form, with my comments. There'll be some longer quotes though. And I know there
are people who may not like York, but just skip his opinions and focus on the facts then.
Overall, Vindman comes across to me as a bureaucrat among bureaucrats, who also appears to
be on the edge what we think of when we mention the Deep State. And who seems to think his
views and opinions trump Trump's own. ".. his greatest worry was that if the Trump-Zelensky
conversation were made public, then Ukraine might lose the bipartisan support it currently has
in Congress."
A US President is elected to determine foreign policy, but Vindman doesn't like things that
way. He wants the policy to be set by people like him. It brings to mind Nikki Haley saying
that Tillerson and Kelly wanted her to disobey the President, because they felt they knew
better. That slide is mighty slippery. And unconstitutional too.
And the suspicion that Vindman's report of the call may be what set off "whistleblowing" CIA
agent Eric Ciaramella is more alive after the testimony than before. But, conveniently, his
name may not be spoken. For pete's sake,
Vindman Even Testified He Advised Ukrainians to Ignore Trump .
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in
full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council
Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between
President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the
Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his
testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper
[for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news
reports.
Here are four problems with the Vindman testimony:
1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
[..] Indeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to
some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript
that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president. As one of a half-dozen
White House note-takers listening to the call, Vindman testified that he tried unsuccessfully
to make a few edits to the rough transcript as it was being prepared. In particular, Vindman
believed that Zelensky specifically said the word "Burisma," the corrupt Ukrainian energy
company that hired Hunter Biden, when the rough transcript referred only to "the company."
But beyond that, Vindman had no problems with the transcript, and he specifically said he did
not believe any changes were made with ill intent.
"You don't think there was any malicious intent to specifically not add those edits?"
asked Republican counsel Steve Castor. "I don't think so." "So otherwise, this record is
complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?" "Yes," said Vindman. Once Vindman
had vouched for the rough transcript, his testimony mostly concerned his own interpretation
of Trump's words. And that interpretation, as Vindman discovered during questioning, was
itself open to interpretation. Vindman said he was "concerned" about Trump's statements to
Zelensky, so concerned that he reported it to top National Security Council lawyer John
Eisenberg. (Vindman had also reported concerns to Eisenberg two weeks before the
Trump-Zelensky call, after a Ukraine-related meeting that included Gordon Sondland, the U.S.
ambassador to the European Union.)
Vindman said several times that he was not a lawyer and did not know if Trump's words
amounted to a crime but that he felt they were "wrong." That was when Republican Rep. John
Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, tried to get to the root of Vindman's concerns. What was
really bothering him? "I'm trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought
there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to
the law," Ratcliffe said to Vindman. "And what I understand you to say is that you
weren't certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had
concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?"
"So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views,"
Vindman answered. "And I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations,
U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan
play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for -- " "I understand that,"
Ratcliffe said, "but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason." Indeed it
did.
Elsewhere in Vindman's testimony, he repeated that his greatest worry was that if
the Trump-Zelensky conversation were made public, then Ukraine might lose the bipartisan
support it currently has in Congress. That, to Ratcliffe and other Republicans, did not seem
a sufficient reason to report the call to the NSC's top lawyer, nor did it seem the basis to
begin a process leading to impeachment and a charge of presidential high crimes or
misdemeanors.
So Vindman was so concerned that he contacted the National Security Council (NSC) top
lawyer, John Eisenberg. However, when John Ratcliffe asked Vindman: "I'm trying to find out
if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy
or there was something wrong with respect to the law.." , it turns out, it was about
policy, not the law. So why did he contact Eisenberg? He doesn't know the difference, or
pretends he doesn't know? Moreover, Eisenberg's not the only person Vindman contacted. There
were lots of others. And remember, this is sensitive material. Vindman was listening in on the
President's phone call with a foreign leader, in itself a strange event. Presidents and PM's
should be able to expect confidentiality.
2) Vindman withheld important information from investigators.
Vindman ended his opening statement in the standard way, by saying, "Now, I would be
happy to answer your questions." As it turned out, that cooperation did not extend to both
parties.
The only news in Vindman's testimony was the fact that he had twice taken his concerns to
Eisenberg. He also told his twin brother, Yevgeny Vindman, who is also an Army lieutenant
colonel and serves as a National Security Council lawyer. He also told another NSC official,
John Erath, and he gave what he characterized as a partial readout of the call to George
Kent, a career State Department official who dealt with Ukraine. That led to an obvious
question: Did Vindman take his concerns to anyone else? Did he discuss the Trump-Zelensky
call with anyone else? It was a reasonable question, and an important one. Republicans asked
it time and time again. Vindman refused to answer, with his lawyer, Michael Volkov, sometimes
belligerently joining in. Through it all, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff
stood firm in favor of keeping his committee in the dark.
[..] Vindman openly conceded that he told other people about the call. The obvious
suspicion from Republicans was that Vindman told the person who became the whistleblower, who
reported the call to the Intelligence Community inspector general, and who, in a carefully
crafted legal document, framed the issue in a way that Democrats have adopted in their drive
to remove the president from office. Vindman addressed the suspicion before anyone raised it.
In his opening statement, he said, "I am not the whistleblower I do not know who the
whistleblower is and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the
whistleblower."
Fine, said Republicans. We won't ask you who the whistleblower is. But if your story is
that you were so concerned by the Trump-Zelensky issue that you reported it to Eisenberg, and
also to others, well, who all did you tell? That is when the GOP hit a brick wall from
Vindman, his lawyer Volkov, and, most importantly, Schiff. As chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, charged with overseeing the intelligence community, Schiff might normally want to
know about any intelligence community involvement in the matter under investigation. But in
the Vindman deposition, Schiff strictly forbade any questions about it. "Can I just caution
again," he said at one point, "not to go into names of people affiliated with the IC in any
way." The purpose of it all was to protect the identity of the whistleblower, who Schiff
incorrectly claimed has "a statutory right to anonymity."
Schiff's role is beyond curious. Sometimes you think he's the boy with his finger in the
dike, mighty fearful that it could break at any moment. But then Vindman's lawyer jumps in as
well:
That left Republicans struggling to figure out what happened. "I'm just trying to
better understand who the universe of people the concerns were expressed to," said Castor.
"Look, the reason we're objecting is not -- we don't want -- my client does not want to be in
the position of being used to identifying the whistleblower, okay?" said Volkov. "And based
on the chair's ruling, as I understand it, [Vindman] is not required to answer any question
that would tend to identify an intelligence officer."
[..] Vindman's basic answer was: I won't tell you because that's a secret. After
several such exchanges, Volkov got tough with lawmakers, suggesting further inquiries might
hurt Vindman's feelings. "Look, he came here," Volkov said. "He came here. He tells you he's
not the whistleblower, okay? He says he feels uncomfortable about it. Try to respect his
feelings at this point." An unidentified voice spoke up. "We're uncomfortable impeaching the
president," it said. "Excuse me. Excuse me," Volkov responded. "If you want to debate it, we
can debate it, but what I'm telling you right now is you have to protect the identity of the
whistleblower. I get that there may be political overtones. You guys go do what you got to
do, but do not put this man in the middle of it."
Castor spoke up. "So how does it out anyone by saying that he had one other conversation
other than the one he had with George Kent?" "Okay," said Volkov. "What I'm telling you right
now is we're not going to answer that question. If the chair wants to hold him in contempt
for protecting the whistleblower, God be with you. You don't need this. You don't need to go
down this. And look, you guys can -- if you want to ask, you can ask -- you can ask questions
about his conversation with Mr. Kent. That's it. We're not answering any others." "The only
conversation that we can speak to Col. Vindman about is his conversation with Ambassador
Kent?" asked Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin. "Correct," said Volkov, "and you've already asked
him questions about it."
"And any other conversation that he had with absolutely anyone else is off limits?" "No,"
said Volkov. "He's told you about his conversations with people in the National Security
Council. What you're asking him to do is talk about conversations outside the National
Security Council. And he's not going to do that. I know where you're going." "No,
actually, you don't," said Zeldin. "Oh, yes, sir," said Volkov. "No, you really don't," said
Zeldin. "You know what?" said Volkov. "I know what you're going to say. I already know
what you're going to do, okay? And I don't want to hear the FOX News questions, okay?"
[..] It should be noted that Volkov was a lawyer, and members of Congress were members
of Congress. The lawyer should not be treating the lawmakers as Volkov did. Volkov was
able to tell Republicans to buzz off only because he had Schiff's full support . And
Republicans never found out who else Vindman discussed the Trump-Zelensky call with.
Looking at this, you get to wonder what the role is of GOP lawmakers, and why anyone would
want to be one. Their peers across the aisle pretend they can tell them exactly what and what
not to do or say. Is that why they are elected? I couldn't find one question or even word in
here that would be labeled unfitting, or out of place, or aggressive or anything like that. But
even then, they hit a brick wall.
So what makes Vindman the expert on Ukraine? I get the idea that it's his compliance with
whatever anyone says is the desired and required policy, and in this case, what is not. He
certainly doesn't appear to know everything. Maybe that's because he left the country at age
three.
3) There were notable gaps in Vindman's knowledge.
Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on the National Security Council when it
came to issues involving Ukraine. "I'm the director for Ukraine," he testified. "I'm
responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable. I'm the authority for Ukraine for the
National Security Council and the White House." Yet at times there were striking gaps in
Vindman's knowledge of the subject matter. He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious
about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.
Vindman agreed with everyone that Ukraine has a serious corruption problem. But he knew
little specifically about Burisma, the nation's second-largest privately owned energy
company, and even less about Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who runs the firm. "What do you
know about Zlochevsky, the oligarch that controls Burisma?" asked Castor. "I frankly don't
know a huge amount," Vindman said. "Are you aware that he's a former Minister of Ecology"?
Castor asked, referring to a position Zlochevsky allegedly used to steer valuable government
licenses to Burisma. "I'm not," said Vindman.
"Are you aware of any of the investigations the company has been involved with over the
last several years?" "I am aware that Burisma does have questionable business dealings,"
Vindman said. "That's part of the track record, yes." "Okay. And what questionable business
dealings are you aware of?" asked Castor. Vindman said he did not know beyond generalities.
"The general answer is I think they have had questionable business dealings," Vindman
said.
[..] Vindman had other blind spots, as well. One important example concerned U.S.
provision of so-called lethal aid to Ukraine, specifically anti-tank missiles known as
Javelins. The Obama administration famously refused to provide Javelins or other lethal aid
to Ukraine, while the Trump administration reversed that policy, sending a shipment of
missiles in 2018. On the Trump-Zelensky call, the two leaders discussed another shipment in
the future. "Both those parts of the call, the request for investigation of Crowd Strike and
those issues, and the request for investigation of the Bidens, both of those discussions
followed the Ukraine president saying they were ready to buy more Javelins. Is that right?"
asked Schiff.
"Yes," said Vindman. "There was a prior shipment of Javelins to Ukraine, wasn't there?"
said Schiff. "So that was, I believe -- I apologize if the timing is incorrect -- under the
previous administration, there was a -- I'm aware of the transfer of a fairly significant
number of Javelins, yes," Vindman said. Vindman's timing was incorrect. Part of the entire
Trump-Ukraine story is the fact that Trump sent the missiles while Obama did not. The top
Ukraine expert on the National Security Council did not seem to know that.
York goes on to explain just how much of a bureaucrat Vindman is, as exemplified by things
like "..there's a fairly consensus policy within the interagency towards Ukraine," . The
"interagency" doesn't set -foreign- policy, the President does.
4) Vindman was a creature of a bureaucracy that has often opposed President
Trump.
One of his favorite words is "interagency," by which he means the National Security
Council's role in coordinating policy among the State Department, Defense Department, the
Intelligence Community, the Treasury Department, and the White House. [..] He says things
such as, "So I hold at my level sub-PCCs, Deputy Assistant Secretary level. PCCs are my boss,
senior director with Assistant Secretaries. DCs are with the deputy of the National Security
Council with his deputy counterparts within the interagency." He believes the interagency has
set a clear U.S. policy toward Ukraine. "You said in your opening statement, or you indicated
at least, that there's a fairly consensus policy within the interagency towards Ukraine,"
Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman said to Vindman.
"Could you just explain what that consensus policy is, in your own words?" "What I can
tell you is, over the course of certainly my tenure there, since July 2018, the interagency,
as per normal procedures, assembles under the NSPM-4, the National Security Policy [sic]
Memorandum 4, process to coordinate U.S. government policy," Vindman said. "We, over the
course of this past year, probably assembled easily a dozen times, certainly at my level,
which is called a subpolicy coordinating committee -- and that's myself and my counterparts
at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level -- to discuss our views on Ukraine."
The "interagency" doesn't set policy, the President does -and with him perhaps the House and
Senate. But not an alphabet soup of agencies.
I've said it before, and I fear I may have to say it again, this is a show trial. And no,
it's not even a trial, that happens next in the Senate. Jonathan Turley said the other day that
he thinks Nancy Pelosi wants a quick -before Christmas- resolution to the House part, but I'm
not convinced.
The reason is that the Democrats lose the director's chair once this moves to the Senate.
They can't silence the Republicans there the same way Adam Schiff does it in the House. Pelosi
herself said in March that impeachment MUST be a bipartisan effort. It's unclear why she
abandoned that position in August, but I think it could be panic, and that it was the worst
move she could have made.
Because this thing in its present shape is unwinnable. To impeach Trump, the Dems would need
Republican votes. But how could they possibly get those when they lock out the Republicans of
the entire process?
I certainly have no legal expertise & knowledge relating to what it takes to impeach a
president, but it does all strike be as being pretty threadbare & if it it all falls
apart only likely to strengthen Trump's support. I get the feeling that the only truly smart
thing about these people is in their ability to constantly fill their rice bowls &
perhaps we need an extra definition for that word.
Smart :
adj. Having or showing intelligence; bright. synonym: intelligent.
adj. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others.
IMO, I also don't believe that the above applies to gadgets, apps or whatever.
I always think of something similar to your second definition when I hear/read that
someone is smart. It is a subclass of self-serving intelligence. If I put myself in Vindman's
position, what would I do? What would be smart and what would be on the general interest?.
His actions reflect where he feels his obligations belong and it shows clearly he was
"obligued" to the interagency, not to the President. It is not clear to me if he thougth that
the interagency represents, better than the president, the interest of the US or if he was
being smart and thinking of his own career within the interagency.
I might have to disagree with Vindman being labelled 'a bureaucrat among bureaucrats'. I
would judge that his allegiances lay elsewhere and by that I do not mean the dual loyalty to
the Ukraine, even though he appears to be acting in the roll of Kiev's man in Washington. I
suppose that you would say that he is a member of the deep state and the policies that they
formulate with little regard to who is in power. That is the thing about these hearings. The
moment that the Republicans pull at a loose thread of this narrative, the Democrats stomp on
it before it goes any further. But the connections are all there on record and can be
followed up. Here are some examples.
Burisma, who is at the heart of this whole matter, has been giving the Atlantic Council
$100,000 a year for the past three years which is deep state central. You can see their name
in the $100,000 – $249,999 section at https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/support-the-council/honor-roll-of-contributors/
and is just below the British Consulate General Istanbul and two entries above CNN. Burisma
"also reimbursed speaker travel and event costs, which amounted to around [$50,000 to
$70,000] per year." One of the staffers that went there was Thomas Eager who worked for
Schiff's Intelligence Committee, and the group at one point met with Bill Taylor, the top
U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. Bill Taylor is now one of the main witnesses.
If any sort of proper investigations start then it will open up all these people and their
connections and the lucrative payments that they have been receiving from places like
Burisma. Maybe when this case first came up the DNC thought that this was an impeachment case
to die for but they may very well get their wish. It is all there online and it does not take
much to find a very dubious group of people, organizations and companies with it seems the
Atlantic Council acting as some sort of clearing house. Below is just one article talking
about some of this stuff as an example-
Burisma is just one of numerous examples of the payoffs and shady deals that poison the
American political system and disgust citizens. Schiff has been given the impossible task of
trying to defend that against mounting evidence of corruption. How can he or anyone else
rationalize that little gas board activity, or countless others including those benefiting
those people related to elected officials across the aisle.
That defense of the widespread corruption permeating the DC culture is the real subject of
Schiff's fool's errand. When he fails, that will set back whatever good works the Dems have
been trying to accomplish, and undermine what remains of an alleged two-party system. That is
the Hill upon which he has been sent to die.
How can the Party that inflicted Christine Blasey Ford on us and turned a Supreme Court
nomination into a Jerry Springer show demean the institutions of the Republic further into
disrepute? With this going nowhere piece of political theater.
I have a hard time believing that any Lieutenant Colonel could be sufficiently high enough
in the food chain to have any impact on policy. I wonder if people are focusing on him too
much, at the expense of what's really going on here.
This isn't just a matter of the bureaucracy at odds with the President – it's also
Congress. Despite what many people seem to think, the President does not have carte blanche
in the conduct of foreign policy. Congress passed legislation to provide military assistance
to Ukraine. The President does not have the authority to decide on his own on whether to
execute that legislation or not. Unless there are conditions attached to that legislation, or
previously existing, the President cannot attach conditions of his own to that
legislation.
The U.S. system of government, as clearly envisioned by the founders, was set up with the
legislative branch to have more power than either the executive or judicial. Only Congress
can initiate legislation, and if the President vetoes it, Congress has the power to override
that veto. You can argue the merits of providing military assistance to the Ukraine (which I
personally think is a bad idea), but Congress did approve of it in accordance with the
Constitution. Trump withholding that assistance most likely did not. There are a lot of bad
actors on both sides of this controversy, but that doesn't mean that there aren't certain
principles worth defending. In my mind, Congress reasserting itself over the President is an
important enough principle to support impeachment (assuming they make their case). Long term,
such a position could also be used to reign in the blob.
One of the wonderful aspects of Empire is that you get to house all the right-wing exiles
from around the world. Whether it's Batista-ites from Cuba, Curveballs from Iraq, rich,
right-wing "refugees" from Chavismo in South America or Ukrainians like Vindman. They're
happy to use the host country to further a color revolution back home, and the CIA is happy
to use them as cover for another Empire resource grab.
What I find amusing about all this is that there is an influential school of American
political science writing going back to Huntington and Janowitz which shows an almost
paranoid distrust of career military officers and their potential impact on policy, and
advocates their close "control" by civilian political authorities to prevent them influencing
government too much. Now, suddenly, every General who ever led a military coup because they
feared that the government was doing things that were bad for the country will be feeling
retrospectively justified. The position in any democracy is quite clear: the government makes
the decisions in the context of existing laws, including the Constitution. Government
officials, in uniform or not, are not there to substitute their judgement of the interests of
the country for the judgement of the political leadership.
One might even entertain the suspicion that the reason so many keep accusing Trump of
fascism is that they keep flirting with it themselves. That "interagency consensus" thing is
much scarier than Trump and indeed some of his more despicable moves –Venezuela,
Bolivia(?)–may track back to that very source. Some of us have long thought that what
the USG does in Latin America is what they would like to do here if they could get away with
it. The previous Clinton impeachment, Bush v Gore, the media's lockstep approval of
imperialistic militaristic "narratives," the wild, over the top rejection of Trump's defeat
of Hillary–all show a deep contempt for the democratic process by both parties. Letting
military or IC figures opine on policy is part of this. How long before some general tells
Trump he should resign to "restore order"?
These Deep-Staters, who aren't so deep anymore, remind me of those Japanese theatre
stage hands that dress in black and by convention, are invisible to the audience, even though
they move about the stage in plain sight.
They've gradually become more and more visible, what with color revolutions abroad, and
election fraud at home, and finally, one would hope, they are throwing a tantrum, insisting
not only that they are still ' invisible' but that their efforts to pull off regime
change here at home are legitimate.
Which reminds me of a good friend's definition of a politician;
"A politician is a person who would try to steal a red-hot stove with their bare
hands."
"... this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods. ..."
"... Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. ..."
"... To me Trump is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it comes to impeachment. ..."
"... Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats . ..."
"... "The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth." ..."
"... Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats! ..."
"... Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a "war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all. ..."
"... To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero. ..."
"... The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee. ..."
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's unsubstantiated assertion that Biden
pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics," he said. "Period. That's on the
record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence campaigns on swing voters and implied
that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it
seems, have their blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's
about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party
agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and
equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take
it. And I agree it's about protecting the current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the impeachment, but other motives seem relevant.
I have thought since Obama went all in with Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And
they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth.
To me Trump
is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to
start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split
when it comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist
Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself
was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone
trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about
Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving
to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact
it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on
a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior to the excerpt I provide, which I
suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and other countries that the Obama administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all
boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to home Pelosi says look over here at
the orange head, look over there at the border but whatever you do, do not look over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE ">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Andrew J. Bacevich weighs in on US foreign policy:
Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of
World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian
Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly
in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a
"war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all.
To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the
ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that
failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero.
There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward,
which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with
King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.t
The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement
on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with
the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee.
Is Whistleblower Aid a Charity Fraud? by Larry C Johnson There has been a lot of
smoke and diversion put up with regards to alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella thanks to the
work of his lawyer, Mark Zaid, and the charitable foundation supporting this
effort--Whistleblower Aid. I think it is time to set the record straight and raise some serious
questions about both Ciaramella and the charity backing him.
Eric Ciaramella, according to various press reports, is a CIA intelligence analyst who also
has close ties to Democrats working against Donald Trump. Ciaramella worked at the National
Security Council on the Ukraine issue and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC
operative Alexandra Chalupa, who were involved in the plot to smear Donald Trump as an agent of
Russia. It also is reported that Ciaramella was suspected of being the source for a false story
claiming that former FBI Director Comey was fired because Vladimir Putin told Trump to do it.
And, most importantly, Ciaramella was back at CIA Headquarters when Donald Trump spoke with
Ukraine's President Zelensky. He did not listen in on the call nor did he have access to the
transcript.
Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower. As a former intelligence analyst, like Ciaramella, I know that you must have
first hand information. What qualifies as first hand? You listened in on the conversation. You
read the transcript. Or, and no one has raised this, you have a piece of human or signals
intelligence that tells a different story from the publicized transcript. ZERO evidence for any
of this. Ciaramella's only qualification is that he does not like Trump and his policies
towards Ukraine.
Then there is the indisputable fact that the Ukrainian President is on the record, in
public, denying any pressure and denying any quid pro quo.
All of these facts justify bringing Mr. Ciaramella before Congress, putting him under oath
and getting him to explain the foundation for his claims. But Democrats and anti-Trumpers are
saying "no" and insisting that the identity of the whistleblower must be protected at all
costs. That is bunk. There is only one legitimate reason to keep the whistleblower's identity
secret--i.e., if he or she was undercover, either official or non-official. Ciaramella was not
undercover. He is no different from any other civil servant who works in any other part of the
Federal bureaucracy. He just happens to hold a Top Secret clearance.
I know several whistleblowers who have been vilified publicly by the very bureaucracies
where they exposed wrong doing--Bill Binney (NSA), Kirk Wiebe (NSA), Ed Loomis (NSA),
Russ Tice (NSA), Diane
Roark (Congress), John Kiriakou (CIA) and Peter Van Buren (State). In none of these
cases was there a public outcry to protect their identity. And there is one big difference
between these whistleblowers and Ciaramella--they had first hand knowledge about wrongdoing in
their respective organizations.
Which brings me to the not-for-profit organization that is backing Ciaramella--Whistleblower
Aid. According to Wikipedia :
In September 2017, Tye and lawyer Mark Zaid cofounded Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit law
firm.
But public records tell a different story. Whistleblower Aid is a "doing-business-as" name.
The incorporated name is Values United. It was
incorporated in Louisiana in April 2009 . The incorporation subsequently was revoked in
2013 and reinstated on 13 March 2017. Here is the Louisiana document:
Values United was granted 501 (c) (3) status on 30 March 2017 (you can find the determination
letter here .)
So, it was organized in March of 2017, not September. A minor point I suppose but a key
fact.
What do we find when we look at the 990 tax return required for not-for-profits? The DBA
name for Values United is Whistleblower Aid:
There is another oddity revealed in the tax return for Whistleblower Aid--huge liabilities.
Total assets at the end of 2017 are $133,106.00. Total liabilities? $752,823.00. Where was the
money going? Who was getting paid? And how is an organization with more than $600,000 in debt
able to stay afloat. True not-for-profits are supposed to operate according to strict oversight
and rules. Is Whistleblower Aid doing what it is chartered to do or is it acting as a partisan
political organization, something a charitable group is not allowed to do. It is worth looking
at.
and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa
So, all roads, then, lead to a criminal undercover org of Taco Bell. When I thought it
couldn't get any more tragicomic, it did. Now Taco Bell's commercials chihuahua comes in mind
with "drop the Chalupa" line. I wonder what do they mean by "drop".
State attorney general offices provide charitable non-profit oversight and offer a complaint
process. George Soros has been campaigning to buy up AG offices, since they wield so much
power behind the spotlight. Someone is Louisiana needs to file an AG complaint.
Liabilities are explained on the attached schedules.
It appears the bulk of the liabilities (nearly $600k) are in the form of loans made TO
"Values United" by the principal officer and his father.
They appear to have financed the bulk of the activity for 2017 via the loans.
They must not have filed a tax return for 2018 (or the IRS hasn't posted it yet.)
Note sure what is going on, but it does appear to be strange. Hard to tell what exactly
they are spending the money on, other than nearly $300k for a flashy Media Strategy firm.
Yeah. Looks more like a vanity charity. Charity fraud shows up on the expenses side that
go to favored parties and has a lot of income that comes from "donors" that expect something
in return. Certain well known foundations by former presidents come to mind. Charitable
foundations are quite a racket.
Is it merely coincidence that it was transformed into "Whistleblower Aid" this late Spring
just when IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson was installed, the IG who changed whistle
blower policies which now no longer require firsthand knowledge ?
This sure seems like one of Chuck Schumer's "6 ways from Sunday" the IC is trying, to get
back at Trump. I wonder who funds this "charity"?
Am I mistaken or isn't this form, so conveniently revised just this past August, 2019, the
"whistleblower" form which now reflects the policy change of permitting secondhand
information?
Who backed the significant debt of this operation is an equally interesting question? . What
do the minutes of the board of directors meetings disclose. How did this significant debt
conform to its stated charitable intent, that allowed its IRS tax exempt status. How
"charitable" will it be if this organization defaults on this amount of debt? More
information, please.
Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the big
public sector unions.
"Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the
big public sector unions.
The post-Clinton Deomcratic Party establishment has adapted to the Citizens
United decision just fine, thank you very much. They just took their cue from Groucho Marx:
"These are my principles! You don't like them? I have others."
Out West we get two standard slurs against all conservatives (aka alt right, far right, right
wingers, Fox and Friends and white supremists:
Conservatives are tools of Citizen United and the Koch Bros. Boooo, hisss, booo!
Clinton swore the first thing she would do as POTUS was get a constitutional amendment
against Citizens United. You report an interesting change of heart. Tell me more. Why is
Citizens United now working for the Democrat Party - the post-Clinton Democrat party, soon to
become the Neo-Clinton party?
It seems to me that Trump is constantly on the back foot playing defense. He does not seem
proactive in countering his opposition and directly taking the fight to his opponents.
He didn't declassify initially to avoid accusations of obstruction of the Mueller special
counsel. Now that Mueller didn't lay the knockout punch, they've found another reason to
claim obstruction with the Ukraine quid pro quo. All along he knew that Rosenstein played him
by setting up Mueller, yet he did not fire him. Same with Wray. He's now passed the buck on
to Barr who has his own agenda and prerogatives.
With LTC Vindman's testimony out there he should be all over his insubordination and as
C-in-C should order his court martial.
The fact that none of the insiders in his administration have a paid any price for their
acts of leaking and stories of innuendo and fanning the flames to have him impeached is only
emboldening them to escalate and be even more brazen.
Many are hoping the Durham investigation will settle the score and that justice, while not
swift, is nevertheless sure. It'll be a huge disappointment (to say the least) if none of the
malefactors pay a hefty price.
A while back, it took me 2 years and lots of legal expenses to finally get satisfaction
from a flooring company, so I would expect something like SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY to take a
little longer!
Trump is always getting ahead of their game, as well as punching back defensively. He is
changing the dynamics. One must listen carefully. So little of his proactive charges filter
through the media - even WSJ and now Fox are playing mind games against Trump. Give Kellyanne
Conway some credit - she still gets ahead of the story like no one else.
Following a complaint, the Scottish Charity Regulator investigated and concluded that
certain aspects of the IOS activities could not be classed as charitable.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
''Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower.''
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman-Russian---Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Polish/Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovitch - Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill --Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard, Russian
expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies
were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't
say.
This Trump coup is coming from the NSC and the State Department, not the CIA this
time.
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name. Not only are
Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of partisanship on
the largest social media platforms in the world.
Phil, you need to get on the State Department and NSC re the coup against Trump by the
Ukraine cabal . The State Department has been stuffed with people like the below who try to
set US policy according their personal loyalties and /or hatreds or love for any foreign
country. And as we all know the State Department lost all objectivity when the Jews
infiltrated it decades ago to run out the 'Arbarist".
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment Ukraine testimony against Trump
Fiona Hill -- -- -- -- Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description "Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. .same spin Jews put
on "Israel fighting for US and world interest against Iran'.
Their testimonies were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what
Trump said or didn't say.
It is clear and was even said by Hill in her testimony that they .."should formulate foreign
policy, not they president'. And in several cases that is what they have done going even
further with sanctions on countries then what was called for and the unattentive Trump just
accepts it .
This Trump coup is coming from the Deep State of the NSC and the State Department, not the
CIA this time.
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken anti
Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate evil.
Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid because it
is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies were as much or
more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't say.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name
Not only are Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of
partisanship on the largest social media platforms in the world.
Is Whistleblower Aid a Charity Fraud? by Larry C Johnson
There has been a lot of smoke and diversion put up with regards to alleged whistleblower
Eric Ciaramella thanks to the work of his lawyer, Mark Zaid, and the charitable foundation
supporting this effort--Whistleblower Aid. I think it is time to set the record straight and
raise some serious questions about both Ciaramella and the charity backing him.
Eric Ciaramella, according to various press reports, is a CIA intelligence analyst who also
has close ties to Democrats working against Donald Trump. Ciaramella worked at the National
Security Council on the Ukraine issue and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC
operative Alexandra Chalupa, who were involved in the plot to smear Donald Trump as an agent of
Russia. It also is reported that Ciaramella was suspected of being the source for a false story
claiming that former FBI Director Comey was fired because Vladimir Putin told Trump to do it.
And, most importantly, Ciaramella was back at CIA Headquarters when Donald Trump spoke with
Ukraine's President Zelensky. He did not listen in on the call nor did he have access to the
transcript.
Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower. As a former intelligence analyst, like Ciaramella, I know that you must have
first hand information. What qualifies as first hand? You listened in on the conversation. You
read the transcript. Or, and no one has raised this, you have a piece of human or signals
intelligence that tells a different story from the publicized transcript. ZERO evidence for any
of this. Ciaramella's only qualification is that he does not like Trump and his policies
towards Ukraine.
Then there is the indisputable fact that the Ukrainian President is on the record, in
public, denying any pressure and denying any quid pro quo.
All of these facts justify bringing Mr. Ciaramella before Congress, putting him under oath
and getting him to explain the foundation for his claims. But Democrats and anti-Trumpers are
saying "no" and insisting that the identity of the whistleblower must be protected at all
costs. That is bunk. There is only one legitimate reason to keep the whistleblower's identity
secret--i.e., if he or she was undercover, either official or non-official. Ciaramella was not
undercover. He is no different from any other civil servant who works in any other part of the
Federal bureaucracy. He just happens to hold a Top Secret clearance.
I know several whistleblowers who have been vilified publicly by the very bureaucracies
where they exposed wrong doing--Bill Binney (NSA), Kirk Wiebe (NSA), Ed Loomis (NSA),
Russ Tice (NSA), Diane
Roark (Congress), John Kiriakou (CIA) and Peter Van Buren (State). In none of these
cases was there a public outcry to protect their identity. And there is one big difference
between these whistleblowers and Ciaramella--they had first hand knowledge about wrongdoing in
their respective organizations.
Which brings me to the not-for-profit organization that is backing Ciaramella--Whistleblower
Aid. According to Wikipedia :
In September 2017, Tye and lawyer Mark Zaid cofounded Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit law
firm.
But public records tell a different story. Whistleblower Aid is a "doing-business-as" name.
The incorporated name is Values United. It was
incorporated in Louisiana in April 2009 . The incorporation subsequently was revoked in
2013 and reinstated on 13 March 2017. Here is the Louisiana document:
Values United was granted 501 (c) (3) status on 30 March 2017 (you can find the determination
letter here .)
So, it was organized in March of 2017, not September. A minor point I suppose but a key
fact.
What do we find when we look at the 990 tax return required for not-for-profits? The DBA
name for Values United is Whistleblower Aid:
There is another oddity revealed in the tax return for Whistleblower Aid--huge liabilities.
Total assets at the end of 2017 are $133,106.00. Total liabilities? $752,823.00. Where was the
money going? Who was getting paid? And how is an organization with more than $600,000 in debt
able to stay afloat. True not-for-profits are supposed to operate according to strict oversight
and rules. Is Whistleblower Aid doing what it is chartered to do or is it acting as a partisan
political organization, something a charitable group is not allowed to do. It is worth looking
at.
and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa
So, all roads, then, lead to a criminal undercover org of Taco Bell. When I thought it
couldn't get any more tragicomic, it did. Now Taco Bell's commercials chihuahua comes in mind
with "drop the Chalupa" line. I wonder what do they mean by "drop".
State attorney general offices provide charitable non-profit oversight and offer a complaint
process. George Soros has been campaigning to buy up AG offices, since they wield so much
power behind the spotlight. Someone is Louisiana needs to file an AG complaint.
Liabilities are explained on the attached schedules.
It appears the bulk of the liabilities (nearly $600k) are in the form of loans made TO
"Values United" by the principal officer and his father.
They appear to have financed the bulk of the activity for 2017 via the loans.
They must not have filed a tax return for 2018 (or the IRS hasn't posted it yet.)
Note sure what is going on, but it does appear to be strange. Hard to tell what exactly
they are spending the money on, other than nearly $300k for a flashy Media Strategy firm.
Yeah. Looks more like a vanity charity. Charity fraud shows up on the expenses side that
go to favored parties and has a lot of income that comes from "donors" that expect something
in return. Certain well known foundations by former presidents come to mind. Charitable
foundations are quite a racket.
Is it merely coincidence that it was transformed into "Whistleblower Aid" this late Spring
just when IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson was installed, the IG who changed whistle
blower policies which now no longer require firsthand knowledge ?
This sure seems like one of Chuck Schumer's "6 ways from Sunday" the IC is trying, to get
back at Trump. I wonder who funds this "charity"?
Am I mistaken or isn't this form, so conveniently revised just this past August, 2019, the
"whistleblower" form which now reflects the policy change of permitting secondhand
information?
Who backed the significant debt of this operation is an equally interesting question? . What
do the minutes of the board of directors meetings disclose. How did this significant debt
conform to its stated charitable intent, that allowed its IRS tax exempt status. How
"charitable" will it be if this organization defaults on this amount of debt? More
information, please.
Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the big
public sector unions.
"Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the
big public sector unions.
The post-Clinton Deomcratic Party establishment has adapted to the Citizens
United decision just fine, thank you very much. They just took their cue from Groucho Marx:
"These are my principles! You don't like them? I have others."
Out West we get two standard slurs against all conservatives (aka alt right, far right, right
wingers, Fox and Friends and white supremists:
Conservatives are tools of Citizen United and the Koch Bros. Boooo, hisss, booo!
Clinton swore the first thing she would do as POTUS was get a constitutional amendment
against Citizens United. You report an interesting change of heart. Tell me more. Why is
Citizens United now working for the Democrat Party - the post-Clinton Democrat party, soon to
become the Neo-Clinton party?
It seems to me that Trump is constantly on the back foot playing defense. He does not seem
proactive in countering his opposition and directly taking the fight to his opponents.
He didn't declassify initially to avoid accusations of obstruction of the Mueller special
counsel. Now that Mueller didn't lay the knockout punch, they've found another reason to
claim obstruction with the Ukraine quid pro quo. All along he knew that Rosenstein played him
by setting up Mueller, yet he did not fire him. Same with Wray. He's now passed the buck on
to Barr who has his own agenda and prerogatives.
With LTC Vindman's testimony out there he should be all over his insubordination and as
C-in-C should order his court martial.
The fact that none of the insiders in his administration have a paid any price for their
acts of leaking and stories of innuendo and fanning the flames to have him impeached is only
emboldening them to escalate and be even more brazen.
Many are hoping the Durham investigation will settle the score and that justice, while not
swift, is nevertheless sure. It'll be a huge disappointment (to say the least) if none of the
malefactors pay a hefty price.
A while back, it took me 2 years and lots of legal expenses to finally get satisfaction
from a flooring company, so I would expect something like SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY to take a
little longer!
Trump is always getting ahead of their game, as well as punching back defensively. He is
changing the dynamics. One must listen carefully. So little of his proactive charges filter
through the media - even WSJ and now Fox are playing mind games against Trump. Give Kellyanne
Conway some credit - she still gets ahead of the story like no one else.
Following a complaint, the Scottish Charity Regulator investigated and concluded that
certain aspects of the IOS activities could not be classed as charitable.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
''Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower.''
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman-Russian---Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Polish/Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovitch - Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill --Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard, Russian
expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies
were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't
say.
This Trump coup is coming from the NSC and the State Department, not the CIA this
time.
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name. Not only are
Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of partisanship on
the largest social media platforms in the world.
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's
unsubstantiated assertion that Biden pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor,
Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics,"
he said. "Period. That's on the record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence
campaigns on swing voters and implied that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S.
Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it seems, have their
blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment
isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in
the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from
the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public
health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing
to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although
if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take it. And I agree it's about protecting the
current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the
impeachment, but other motives seem relevant. I have thought since Obama went all in with
Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the
Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes
and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. To me Trump is like the mobster Joe
Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and
wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So
they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes
Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it
comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of
the Bidens in the Ukraine affair' (original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der
Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19,
nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's
an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the
same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the
Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial
assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope
something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has
been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience
with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when
in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream
media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but
vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior
to the excerpt I provide, which I suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic
Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost
the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya, Yemen, and other countries that the Obama
administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high
crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get
the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to
home Pelosi says look over here at the orange head, look over there at the border but
whatever you do, do not look over https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE
">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture
of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair' (original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der
Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19,
nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Following the release of the letter, Trump gave his two cents, arguing the list ought to be
expanded to include "Nervous Nancy Pelosi" and "Sleepy Joe Biden."
I recommend that Nervous Nancy Pelosi (who backed up Schiff's lie), Shifty Adam Schiff,
Sleepy Joe Biden, the Whistleblower (who miraculously disappeared after I released the
transcript of the call), the 2nd Whistleblower (who also disappeared), & the I.G., be
part of the list!
"... Trump's real offense is waging an un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and for-real genocidal war against the human beings of Yemen. His war crimes in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq have at least taken place in conflicts supposedly authorized by Congress, making the legal cases against actions there somewhat more complicated. ..."
"... But in Yemen, no law, only presidential orders, have authorized our military , spies , arms merchants and mercenaries to "lead from behind" in this disastrous war of the so-called "Saudi-led coalition" against the civilian population there. ..."
Americans should support the impeachment and removal of
President Donald Trump, but not for Ukrainegate . In fact, they should oppose his
impeachment on Ukrainegate grounds completely.
Trump's real offense is waging an un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and
for-real genocidal war against the human beings of Yemen. His war crimes in
Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq have at least taken place in conflicts supposedly
authorized by Congress, making the legal cases against actions there somewhat more
complicated.
But in Yemen, no law, only presidential orders, have authorized our
military ,
spies , arms
merchants and
mercenaries to "lead from behind" in this disastrous war of the so-called "Saudi-led
coalition" against the civilian population there.
The previous Yemen war, the CIA and air force drone war against al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which began in 2009, the lawyers argued, was legal
under the Authorization to Use Military Force against the group that attacked the United
States on September 11th 2001. They were, after all, involved in
the attack , and had previously bombed the USS Cole in 2000. Of course that drone
war only backfired ,
empowering the al Qaeda enemy by radicalizing the local population. It turns out a 500-pound
bomb isn't a "scalpel" in real life, like they say in Washington.
But this is not that war . This is the war that President Barack Obama and
then-Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin
Salman started back in March 2015. It's not a war against AQAP at all. In fact, from the
very beginning it's been
a war for AQAP and their allies against their deadly enemies, the Houthi movement
of Zaidi Shi'ite tribes from the north of the country who seized the capital city of Sana'a
at the end of 2014. The Houthis had been helping
the U.S. to fight
against AQAP .
Strikes against AQAP have continued as well, mostly to
bad effect . But even the blowback from that
failed policy amounts to nothing
compared to the gains
al Qaeda has made from fighting on what is now America's side in the war, mostly due to
their
association with the mercenary forces of the United Arab Emirites, a major partner in the
U.S.-led coalition.
By the time Obama switched to their side in the war, AQAP had also inspired the Ft. Hood
massacre , attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit , launched an
attempted bomb
attack on a U.S. cargo plane and massacred
the staff of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, France in January 2015.
That same January, Obama's undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Gen.
Michael Vickers, announced that the U.S. was working with the new regime against al
Qaeda. Just two months later, Barack Obama betrayed the Houthis and sided with al Qaeda
against them.
The AUMF does not cover that.
And let's get it straight. America is the "Superpower"; Saudi Arabia is our client state.
Obama didn't have to do anything. In fact, to hear his war cabinet tell it, they can barely
remember starting the war at all.
Robert Malley, Obama's coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and Gulf Region,
recently
wrote (get this):
"Why the U.S. got entangled in this war -- and why a president so determined to keep
the country out of another Mideast military mess nonetheless got caught in this one -- makes
for a painful a story. [sic] In March 2015, Saudi Arabia came to the U.S. with a
request for support in a campaign it vowed to conduct regardless. After that, and although
events took place a mere four years ago, memories blur. In our conversations, many former
U.S. officials found it hard to recall what precisely the Saudis asked for, what specific
commitments the administration made in response, and when certain types of assistance started
to flow. Some, including one of us who attended the deliberations, recall a deeply ambivalent
president who greenlighted U.S. support but insisted it be confined to the defense of Saudi
territory and not extend to the war against the Houthis. Others don't recall hearing about
that instruction, and struggle to reconcile it with what the U.S. actually did during the war
-- including refueling coalition sorties and replenishing weapons stocks.
[laugh track]
"Yet all agree the decision ultimately came without much debate. The reason, at bottom,
was straightforward: Here was a partner (Saudi Arabia) seeking help in restoring a government
(that of President Hadi) the U.S. regarded as legitimate and a loyal ally in the war against
al-Qaeda. That government had been toppled by an insurgent group (the Houthi or Ansar Allah);
although the extent of its ties to Iran was debatable and debated, their existence was
indisputable. Plus, all this came at a time when relations between Washington and Riyadh
already were deeply damaged by disagreements over the Obama administration's response to the
Arab uprisings and, even more so, its negotiations over a nuclear deal with Tehran. As Riyadh
saw it, doing nothing would mean permitting control by a Hizbollah-like organization of its
southern border, ensconcing a perpetual threat. Rebuffing the Saudi request at any time
likely would have provoked a serious crisis in Saudi/U.S. bilateral relations. Doing so while
the U.S. was seeking a landmark agreement with the kingdom's sworn enemy could have brought
them to breaking point. That was a risk even a president skeptical of the wisdom of Saudi
policies and willing to call into question elements of the relationship was not prepared to
take.
Poor helpless President of the United States of America. Unlike, say,
Iran's nuclear weapons program , the Houthis' "existence was indisputable ." What
could Obama possibly do at that point than stab them, his actual anti-al Qaeda allies, in the
back and take MBS and Ayman al Zawahiri's side against them? It's high treason His
Royal Highness wants, it's
high treason he gets.
So this treasonous war is unauthorized and therefore un-Constitutional
. It's also a war that is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, and not only technically
speaking. Lo and behold the unbelievable fact that
both houses of the U.S. Congress have voted to invoke the War Powers Resolution, demanding an
end to the war. They even passed the same version at the same time and sent it to the
president's desk earlier this year. He 'vetoed' it . So
the unauthorized, unconstitutional, treasonous war is also in the narrow sense, illegal.
But what's this about genocide? That could fall under the War Crimes Act .
That's exactly what it is.
The
strategy of the U.S.-Saudi campaign has been to target Yemen's water, electric and sewage
systems, hospitals, markets and farms – where they bomb the grain silos, flocks of
sheep in the field, irrigation systems and whatever else they can target to destroy the basic
infrastructure supporting the lives of the civilian population, especially in the north of
the country. During the last
world's worst cholera outbreak in history before the current
one , the U.S.A. and their Saudi friends
bombed the cholera hospitals just to be sure to kill as many babies as possible.
All the while the U.S. Navy helps the Saudis and UAE keep the place under
blockade , preventing
virtually all international trade, and
limiting the availability of humanitarian aid.
The most powerful nation in world history, barely hiding behind its proxy, is decimating
the poorest, weakest country in the Middle East.
Yemen is not a country that ever attacked us or threatened us. Even the Houthis'
anti-American slogans were only adopted to
embarrass their then-enemy and later-ally, dictator Abdullah Saleh, for being so close to
the George W. Bush administration in the 2000s.
As referenced above, the Houthis were helping
the Obama government fight al Qaeda at the time he started bombing them. And he only did
it to " placate the
Saudis " over their unease about the possibility of a new (absolutely out of the
question) American slant back toward Iran while negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal.
The latest numbers from the group ACLED Data have it that
over 100,000 people have been killed in the violence of the war, while the UN recently
said that more
than 133,000 additional people had died in the war due to deprivation (starvation,
otherwise easily treatable diseases, etc.). This includes 85,000children
under 5 years old , many thousands of whom died of cholera. That is, they vomited and
defecated themselves to death.
[Insert mental image of a young child you know and love dying that way and you being
absolutely unable to do anything about it here.]
From the very beginning it was known that this very poor
country was heavily dependent on foreign food imports for their survival and that the state
of war would immediately propel masses to famine . And so
it has.
So you see, the war is un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and
genocidal
all at the same time. It is as bad as Iraq War II at least. When the whole thing is finally
over, we are virtually certain to find that the "excess death rate" for the Yemeni people
during this time equates to over a million dead.
But Donald Trump could have stopped the war almost three years ago. He could stop it right
now with one simple phone call to the secretary of defense. Instead he crows about how much
money "we're" making helping Saudi's government kill.
This is the same reason why I have supported impeachment and removal against George Bush
Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama before Trump: war crimes.
Not only should Trump be removed from office for this wanton murder, he should have to
share a Supermax cell with his buddy Barack Obama
for the rest of their lives over it too.
That would be the law and justice being applied to the powerful equally like in the
theories they teach us in high school civics class about how our system is supposed to
work.
But folks. Come on now. That is not what this current impeachment scandal is at all.
America's
secret police , formerly under John "
Jabhat al Nusra " Brennan, are leading a coup against the elected leader of the national
government. Cry as they might about how uncouth Trump is,
the real motive for the entire Russiagate setup was their fear that he might actually
mean some of the good things he said about " getting along
with Russia ," his disregard
for the NATO alliance and
unwillingness to continue America's indefinite catastrophe in the Middle East.
Isolationism!
Like the fools who believed in him, all the hawks took what Trump said at face value and
went crazy. Treat the Palestinians "
fairly "?! Red Alert! DEFCON 1! Treason Summit!
But Trump has
escalated every single one of the wars he
inherited from Barack Obama in 2017. He's done everything
the Israelis want. But it's just not enough. Trump doesn't believe in America's
divine
mission to dominate the planet earth – er, "lead" it – until the end of time.
He doesn't demand the rest of us do either. His terrible
trade policies also are "
disruptive " to our system of permanent alliances around the world. That is why the "deep
state" is out to get him.
After failing
to
stop Trump's inauguration with their false accusations
that he conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, and chucking the
possibility that they could get his cabinet to overthrow him by invoking the 25th
amendment, the feds settled on a project to "
reign him in " at the very least by dragging out the fake Russia caper as long as they
could.
Once the special council
threw in the towel after another year of false Russiagate accusations, they switched to
Plan B. Now that it's clear that the "
whistleblower " Eric Ciaramella, formerly worked for Brennan, this entire thing should be
cancelled. It doesn't matter that Trump was
caught acting unethically with the Ukrainians, the presumption must be that Ciaramella
was acting as a spy for the CIA against the elected president, sent there to find something,
anything that could be used against Trump to take him down. Wait around a little while. It
won't take long.
(Isn't it funny how most of the media still won't say the man's name, Eric Ciaramella , after it's
already been
published . Isn't their job now to either confirm it's true or not that he's the one who
started this? Oh, no, they just love and want to protect whistleblowers now,
right? That must be what's behind all the recent
fawning coverage of Chelsea Manning's current sacrifice in federal prison.)
Opposing the U.S. coups in Ukraine in 2004 and
2014 and
U.S. support of any kind for their
Nazi-infested military forces, and being absolutely against Joe Biden and
everything about him , and his scumbag
,
crackhead son and
their roles in Ukraine after
the last coup , I am therefore also very dubious about just what a terrible crime it is
supposed to be that Trump would hold up this "vital" aid to Ukraine under these or any other
circumstances. This is the narrative, you've noticed: Americans – you – owe
Ukraine's government loyalty forever. To fail to give them the weapons they need to
restart the
horrible war against their countrymen in the east would be an unpardonable sin and
so-forth. Call it another clue as to what is really going on around here.
To allow the CIA this win – after they've
gotten away with
using torture to lie us into war in Iraq and their
presumption to challenge the authority of the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee
by spying on her and attempting to have the Department of Justice prosecute her staffers for
investigating that torture; after the revelations of their lawless NSA-like spying on
Americans in the
Vault 7 leak ; after their supporting
al Nusra in Syria for 4 years leading to the
rise of the Islamic State "caliphate" and Iraq War III; after they
lied that the president of the United States was a guilty traitor who stole the 2016
election with the help of the Kremlin – would be no victory for justice at all.
After racking up a president's head as a trophy for their wall ( a second ?), just think what
these monsters would be like then.
It's pretty
easy to tell when there's a CIA coup going on. When they
openly
boast about it, as former acting CIA director John McLaughlin
recently did , then you should be on the right side of it, against.
Any real effort to hold all politicians accountable for their crimes under the equal rule
of law should be welcomed and supported. We'll believe it when we see Obama's indictment
right next to Trump's.
Chalupa, Nunes writes, can shed light on "the facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian
involvement in the 2016 election."
According to Nunes, Ohr told committees in 2018 that Fusion GPS sources included high
ranking Ukrainians. And Ohr, the lawmaker claims, can help illuminate "the facts and
circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election."
A controversial whistleblower who allegedly reported second-hand on President
Donald Trump's
private conversation with the Ukrainian President
Volodymyr
Zelensky visited the Obama White House on numerous occasions, according to Obama era visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch.
Last week
Real Clear Investigation's first reported the whistleblower's name. It is allegedly CIA officer Eric Ciaramella. His name, however,
has been floating around Washington D.C. since the leak of Trump's phone call. It was considered an 'open secret' until reporter
Paul Sperry published his article. Ciaramella has never openly stated that he is the whistleblower and most news outlets are not
reporting his name publicly.
He was detailed to the National Security Counsel during the Obama Administration in 2015 and was allegedly sent back to the CIA
in 2017, after a number of people within the Trump White House suspected him of leaking information to the press, according to several
sources that spoke with SaraACarter.com .
Further, the detailed visitor logs reveal that a Ukrainian expert
Alexandra Chalupa , a contractor that was hired by the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, visited the White
House 27 times.
Chalupa allegedly coordinated with the Ukrainians to investigate then candidate Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
Manafort was forced out of his short tenure as campaign manager for Trump when stories circulated regarding business dealings with
Ukrainian officials. Manafort was later investigated and convicted by a jury on much lesser charges then originally set forth by
Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation. He was given 47 months in prison for basically failing to pay appropriate taxes and
committing bank fraud.
Both Ciaramella and Chalupa are of interest to Republican's investigating the what some conservatives have described as the second
Trump 'witch-hunt.' And many have called for the whistleblower to testify to Congress.
They are absolutely correct and within the law. There is so much information and evidence that reveals that this was no ordinary
whistleblower complaint but one that may have been based on highly partisan actions targeting Trump.
Here's just one example : Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes said its impossible to have a fair impeachment
inquiry without the testimony of the alleged whistleblower because he is a 'fact foundational witness' who had met with Intelligence
Committee Chairman
Adam
Schiff, D-CA, previously. Schiff had originally denied that he had any contact with his committee and then had to walk back his
statements when it was revealed that the whistleblower had met with the Democrats prior to filing his complaint to the Intelligence
Inspector General about the President.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, said the visitor logs reveal that there is much lawmakers or the American public don't know
about what happened during the 2016 presidential elections and moreover it raises very significant questions about the apparent partisan
nature of the whistleblower.
"Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine
and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump," said Fitton, in a press release Friday.
"Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs."
Read Below From Judicial Watch
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White
House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She
visited on December 9, 2015
The Hill
reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, "took the rare step of
trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC)."
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded
Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department
Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.
On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported
that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department's policy
planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of
the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama's Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.
On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy
reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.
Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on
June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered
documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with Clinton-funded
dossier . Judicial Watch also released
documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of classified Russia investigation
information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire
reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:
Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European
affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9,
2015.
Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That
meeting was on June 2, 2015.
Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with
Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016.
Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work
for the City of Chicago Treasurer's office.
Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.
On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis
Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.
"... Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose." ..."
"... : by telling the president that he was not a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name. ..."
"... by the time he issued his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling. ..."
"... On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern summarized the findings: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton ..."
"... Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now, either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020, too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope. ..."
With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies
hope.
Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose."
The president is familiar with these rules by now, as they're the same ones that governed the investigations into Russian meddling
in the 2016 election. FBI Director James Comey told Trump at the outset that he was not a target of the investigation.
Yet anonymous quotes and other questionably sourced reports continued to appear in the press claiming that Trump was a Russian
asset-as Hillary Clinton might bluntly put it-and so the president asked Comey to say in public what he had told him in private.
Comey refused, and Trump soon fired him.
This act of self-defense, or pique, depending on your point of view, triggered calls for the appointment of a special counsel
to take over the investigation-which ballooned from an investigation that didn't center around Trump into one in which Trump's behavior
toward Comey was grounds for investigating the president. Comey had made a power play: by telling the president that he was not
a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's
elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to
the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name.
Other politicians might play by those rules out the desire for self-preservation. Trump chose not to. And so, an ex-FBI
director, who may have had hopes of becoming director once again, took over the investigation. Comey would not go unavenged. Mueller
ultimately found nothing criminal or meriting a recommendation of impeachment in Trump's behavior. But by the time he issued
his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage
and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and
then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling.
The Ukraine corruption that is at the heart of the Democrats' impeachment project involves the same logic if somewhat different
players. On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The
story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David
Stern summarized the findings:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only
to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico
investigation found.
If a foreign power involves itself is a U.S. election like that, shouldn't America ask questions? And shouldn't aid money to that
foreign power be held up until those questions were answered-not least because withholding those funds might be necessary to compel
cooperation with the investigation and to get the foreign interest to mend its ways? The questions Trump had to ask in this case,
however, involving what ties Ukrainians had to prominent Democratic Party figures, could and would, of course, be portrayed by Democrats
and the media sympathetic to them as a kind of election interference in its own right. Why, Trump was demanding a quid pro quo from
Kiev-the funds in return for information about the Democrats or an investigation that would embarrass a possible 2020 nominee.
Again, as Trump's enemies would have it, he loses if he acts (by firing Comey, by urging Kiev to look into questionable behavior
by or benefiting Democrats), and he loses if he doesn't act (and simply accepts mischaracterizations of the Russia investigation
in the press or Kiev's intrigues with Democrats). Trump has a predilection to defy his enemies-something they might now have come
to count on-so rather than taking the beating they want to mete out to him, he hits back, and then they cry foul. The media intensifies
its insinuations that Trump has broken one or more laws (though just which law remains vague and hardly even argued, let alone proven),
and the president's foes reach for their institutional weapons: the special counsel provisions and now impeachment proceedings. When
Republicans do not go along with the kangaroo court, well-paid ex-conservatives are hauled out to bemoan the lost integrity of a
party whose last president misled the country into ceaseless wars in the Middle East-with these very same ex-conservatives having
led the cheers for those interventions.
Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because
Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further
manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama
was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton.
Ukrainians are only acting in self-interest here:
they understandably want to enlist U.S. power in every way possible as a check upon Russia. The prospect of American politics taking
a turn toward rapprochement with Russia stirs Ukraine to take one side in our elections and Russia to take another. This is an old
familiar pattern in American politics-as old as the Washington and Adams administrations, when revolutionary France and counter-revolutionary
England had interests in our elections, and America's ideological factions were inclined to favor one power or another. Neutrality
was the course that George Washington urged, and by and large, it was the one that won out, even when the French-sympathizing Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison came to power.
A lesson from George Washington would stand the leaders in Washington, DC in good stead today. But Democrats in Congress have
other ideas: Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now,
either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican
senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020,
too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the
more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the
cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough
to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope.
nopeace > jeremypw • 2 hours ago
The Jan 2017 piece referenced above disproves your entire post. It points out that Democrats used Ukraine n the 2016
election (long before Trump ever the Ukraine or Biden entered the race.
BTW, there wasn't just one country where the drug-abusing, bad discharged Biden-boy made gross amounts of money from countries
trying to buy influence in the Obama administration through his father. There were several, including China. The difference is
that his father admitted on video to threatening withdrawing billions in U.S. aid if the prosecutor of his son was not fired.
True quid pro quo.
"... Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign, never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself. ..."
"... Faced now with a criminal investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an allegation of conducting routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy. ..."
Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia
did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion
revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign,
never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI
was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself.
In the end, though, it doesn't matter if it were a hack or a leak by an insider. That's
because the emails WikiLeaks released were accurate. When documents check out it is
irrelevant who the source is. That's why WikiLeaks set up an anonymous drop box, copied
by big media like The Wall Street
Journal and others
. Had the emails been counterfeit and disinformation was inserted into a U.S. election by a
foreign power that would be sabotage. But that is not what happened.
The attempt to stir up the thoroughly discredited charge of collusion appears to be part of
the defense strategy of those whose reputations were thoroughly discredited by maniacally
pushing that false charge for more than two years. This includes legions of journalists. But
principal among them are intelligence agency officials who laundered this "collusion"
disinformation campaign through the mainstream media.
Faced now with a criminal
investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers
and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by
launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an
allegation of conducting
routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy.
Stone may be just a footnote to this historic partisan battle that may scar the nation for a
generation. But he has the personality to be the poster boy for the Democrats' lost cause.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
"... "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be 'Very, Very Worried" ..."
"... If he does not go for a second term, his enemies will go after him legally and he would be without the protection of being President. The establishment would pin anything that they can (or make up) so as to teach any other future Presidential candidate that you do not become so without getting the nod from them first. So Roman that. ..."
"John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be 'Very, Very Worried"
Way back when, it was taken as mostly-gospel that Trump was surprised as anybody that he
won, and that he didn't really want the job. While it appears that he's having lots of fun
being #1, maybe he's not so worried about an impeachment, because it will get him out of the
White House, and back to making money. Impeachment could be Donald and the Repub's wet dream:
they get rid of an odious figurehead (but one who has given them everything they have
wanted), they get Mike Pence to finish off the term and run in 2020, and he can claim he was
unjustly removed from office, all the while raking in the $$ from speaking engagements, new
TV shows, merch sales, and additional influence peddling.
I've always felt that Trump's best move would be to not run again. It would be perfectly
in character for him to say "been there done that" and exit with his middle finger extended.
He's done it his whole life and his "brand" for those who ever bought it to begin with would
be even stronger. Successful impeachment might slow him up a bit but does anyone really think
he's just gonna go away with his tail between his legs after he leaves the White House? He's
shameless and unless he goes to jail he will be with us forever which, loved or hated, is the
only thing that matters to him
This of course is the true hope of the impeachers–that he will just quit–since
they know he won't really be impeached. They look fondly to the Nixon precedent.
If he does not go for a second term, his enemies will go after him legally and he
would be without the protection of being President. The establishment would pin anything that
they can (or make up) so as to teach any other future Presidential candidate that you do not
become so without getting the nod from them first. So Roman that.
From the Medium article "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be Very, Very
Worried"
"I don't think dirt-digging would offend Bolton. What would offend Bolton is interrupting
military supplies to a country in a deadly battle with Russia. Doing something that for
whatever reason appeases Putin," Thielmann said."
The country referred to is Ukraine. I guess I've missed all the msm articles detailing all
those deadly clashes between Russian & Ukrainian military units along with casualty
figures and all that. I suppose I need to pay closer attention (or something).
UN says 12,800–13,000 killed since April 2014. So Congress bought a pile of Javelin
AT munitions, the ones with a top attack flight profile that will place a high explosive
shape-charge of molten copper through tops of young Russian tank commanders' heads, who are
sons of Putin's base, if there was a mechanized push further into Ukraine. [The political
tolerance window for which is narrowing.]
Our benevolent leader said, "Hold-on. You gotta first get your FBI to clear my campaign
and come up with some trumped-up charges against my political opponent. My FBI won't do it."
Congressional impoundment, solicitation of a bribe for personal gain, and abuse of power. In
any case, Ukraine's getting a smaller pile of missiles until next year, so, gross incompetent
moves, both domestic and abroad.
You recall that the Obama administration opposed giving Ukraine any lethal assistance?
Congress has just come up with an excellent method of giving the Russians a lot of free
Javelins if there were a serious fight. Which there continues to be no sign of.
The great bulk of (pro-government) Ukrainian casualties occurred in the course of
ill-advised and poorly conducted offensives against the breakaway republics. When it only
defends, the Ukrainian side doesn't suffer casualties. Because nobody attacks it.
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt? What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity. I just can't see what Trump is
supposed to be guilty of except making this transparent.
The distinction I've heard being made is whether the bribery (or whatever they decide to
call it) happened for personal gain or the public's/nation's gain. What's being alleged here
is that this was a case where it was for personal gain.
In other words, whatever shady tactics a public representative uses to obtain concessions
is just fine if it's to benefit those he or she represents, but not fine if it only benefits
the representative him or herself.
I think this line of argument actually makes some sense, so I'm starting to come around to
the idea of this impeachment.
Clinton, Military aid to Saudi Arabia, Saudi donation to Clinton Foundation.
Biden threat to withhold aid from Ukraine unless prosecutor fired, son gets to keep five
figure job AND stay out of Ukrainian prison.
I am pretty sure a fair case could be made for some other items in the Middle East and
South America especially when you look at post government employment and positions.
If I thought any of this would actually change business as usual in DC, I would be all for
it. But just as with Benghazi, those in charge of the investigation are trying to take out
limited targets while keeping changing SOP out of it.
It is political show and directed by a group of people who should be limited to the same
power I have, one vote.
Unfortunately what you say rings true about the usual players trying to selectively
prosecute. But at what point do (did?) we just throw our hands up and say (said?) "forget it,
let's just ignore this part of the law (constitution)" even in the face of clear evidence
that it happened?
As I learn more, this is starting to look to me like a clearer case for an impeachment
trial than there was against Clinton, or even against Nixon, since bribery is very
specifically mentioned in the constitution as a justification for impeachment (as opposed to
the less specific "high crimes and misdemeanors", which I presume is what those other two
cases fell under).
If that's the case, then Trump's team has to show that the Bidens were being investigated
for corruption. I'm sure that the GOP would gladly include a show-trial of sorts into
impeachment proceedings to demonstrate this was the case even if it wasn't.
This whole thing is ridiculous and will only serve to boost Trump, especially when the Dems
(again) force-feed a conservative through the convention as their nominee.
Right, one of his possibly effective lines of defense could be that he indeed made that
request for the benefit of the country, and that it was just an unfortunate coincidence that
it was regarding a political opponent. And he would have some backing evidence in the form of
his other unusual requests like pressuring Sweden to release the rapper and all that.
I also agree that this whole thing could possibly boost him, but not necessarily. It may
well enrage his base, but it may turn away people in the middle who are still open to solid
arguments and evidence.
I don't think the whole thing is ridiculous anymore, and feel that Pelosi decided that she
finally had something substantial to start impeachment after talking about it for so
long.
The only things he is guilty of, is being an uncouth D.C. outsider that relishes pulling
festering scabs off of the tony eastcoast pearl-clutchers, and giving the one-finger salute
to California liberals ("I • Drink • Your • Impeachment • MILKSHAKE !,
Nancy .. I DRINK IT UP siffft !!) .. when he's not bullchinashopping the Brunch Crowd,
swilling the Dom Perrier before making off with the Belgian Waffles.
Mhmmm, it's not a joke. As it seems received wisdom here @NC that trump will be
re-elected, & liberal Dems don't get it & lefty can't get elected, what harm is there
in holding trump accountable for something, whether you understand it or not, for something
that he is actually responsible for?
It matters not if every other president is equally guilty which they are not. There are
prices to be paid.
"To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss national security in the context
of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir
Putin. "
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under
President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation " Intelgate
," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee
Smith in his new book . Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and
equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such
transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave
power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
§ We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press"
cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream
media -- leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to
cover and report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of
Russiagate allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The
New York Times seem
eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and
his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's
critics accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and the
Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert Mueller
report.
Jeffrey Harrison says: November 6, 2019 at 9:30 pm
There are no more "honorable members of the Senate", Mr. Cohen. The members of both houses
of Congress are partisan hacks who know nothing of how to run a country or exist in a
multipolar world, they only know how to get elected.
Facebook Scrubs All References To Alleged Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
by
Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/08/2019 - 16:45
0
SHARES
Facebook announced on Friday that it would be removing an posts which name alleged Trump-Ukraine
whistleblower
Eric Ciaramella
.
"
We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower's name and will
revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures
in the debate
," Facebook said in a statement in which they claim it violates their
"coordinating harm" policy which prohibits content 'outing of witness, informant, or activist.'
On Wednesday, the social media giant removed ads naming Ciaramella which had been viewed several
hundred thousand times according to the
Washington Post
.
On Friday,
Breitbart
'
s Allum Bohkari reported that the news outlet's posts containing references to
Ciaramella had been scrubbed from the site.
Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts
reporting
on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged
whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on
Facebook is now given a message that says, "this content isn't available at the moment."
To be clear, Breitbart did not "out" the alleged whistleblower but did provide
additional relevant reporting about him
; he is, after all, a public figure, having
served on the National Security Council
. Moreover, his name has been used in the
Mueller report (p283)
and Ambassador Bill Taylor's
testimony
.
Administrators of Breitbart News' Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday
evening stating that Breitbart's page is "at risk of being unpublished" but were not given any
details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue. -
Breitbart
"
There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal
law
," said attorney Dan Meyer, the former executive director of the intelligence community
whistleblower program, adding "Congress has never provided that protection."
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt?
What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity.
I just can't see what Trump is supposed to be guilty of except making this
transparent.
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and
unconvincing, given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I
suppose we should all welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent
is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the ' shomer ' (guardian) of wistleblowers.
This is Pelosi attempt to score some political points for coming elections, but it can backfire in Republicans in the Senate deside
to wipe the floor with her and Schiff.
It would be totally ridiculous, unprecedented, and farcical for the losing party to impeach a president
There was definitely treason all right, by elements of the CIA, FBI, and DNC, working with MI5 and Ukrainian oligarchs, to first
interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Clinton, and after the surprise loss, to overturn the results with the ridiculous Russia-gate
(and now Ukraine-gate) hoaxes.
The Democrats will destroy themselves.Wikipedia: "Hoist with his own petard" is a phrase from a speech in Hamlet that has become
proverbial. The phrase's meaning is literally that the bomb-maker...is blown up ("hoisted" off the ground) by his own bomb, and
indicates an ironic reversal, or poetic justice.
So if Trump's behavior is all kosher, I guess the DNC should hold a press conference tomorrow to officially ask every foreign
country to search for dirt on Trump, his kids, Kushner, and their companies. They have been sleazing around a lot of countries
making "deals" for a long long time.
If it is okay to ask foreign countries for help with domestic elections, the Dems should get all over that right away. Hmmmm,
I wonder if Trump has offended any foreign countries in the last couple of years, who might like to help usher him out of office...?
China, Mexico, half of Europe. Their intelligence agencies should give the DNC a call.
Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder too, I guess. Unless you can define how the Federal Bribery Statute has historically been
applied to US presidents dealing for foreign leaders. I'm sure the readers would be interested in seeing you make that case.
Asking for cooperation from an ally in exposing corruption has never been "charged" any other US president. If you want examples
of other presidents' quid pro quos, just ask. Foreign aid is a political quid pro quo (as we have VP Joe Biden bragging
about on camera). It is not, however, extortion in the jurusprudential meaning of the term. It's reckless and dishonest to claim
that it is.
The Pandora's Box of criminializing heretofore normal presidential activities is one of the more egregious examples of leftwing
ideologues scorching the earth of America's government.
I sat out the last presidential election, because both candidates who were running were unacceptable to me, but Pat's analysis
has cut through all the propaganda surrounding this clumsy coup attempt to overturn the choice that American voters made for who
they wanted as their next president.
...As for the notion that Biden started the civil war in Ukraine? Nonsense. What really kick
started that was the attack on Russian speakers launched as the first order of business.
Killing a bunch of people in Odessa by setting a building on fire and trapping them inside was
motivation too.
Lee Arnold@72 speaks of democratic process. and Russian expansion. Both are imaginary. The
process in Ukraine is fascist. It's true that the open fascists are not at the top, but then,
this was true of Franco's Spain, where the Falange party was not on top either. But only a
swindler would deny Franco's Spain was fascist.
The idea there was no rebellion against the fascists in Kyiv is preposterous on the face of
it. Further, Kharkov nearly went with Donetsk and Lugansk, but the national government managed
to keep control. There is no sane scenario where a Russian invasion doesn't take Kharkov, which
shows it wasn't Russian invasion that started it. And, conclusively, incorporating Donetsk and
Lugansk means ending the war in some fashion that leaves essential control to Moscow. Whatever
military assistance Russia gives the rebels is about making sure they don't go too the left in
fighting the fascists and making sure there are no embarrassing wave of Russian-speaking
refugees from Ukrainian fascism. Endless war is not incorporation. It just means Putin is a
fool for thinking one side won't eventually collapse. Lastly, as to Crimea, the simple truth is
that the establishment of liberal democracies generally demands consolidation of the national
territory, which generally demands redrawing boundaries and ethnic cleansing. The insistence
that Ukrainian fascists have a "right" to make Russians in Crimea second-class citizens because
of old maps is not becoming.
"... Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance ..."
"... The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on collision course with the rest of the country. ..."
"... The Democratic leadership have accepted that their real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now. ..."
"... So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking 'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days. ..."
"... The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly bragged about. ..."
"... That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower". ..."
"... Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co? ..."
For those readers who care more about Donald Trump, Obama's legacy or the Republican/Democrat
parties rather than the Rule of Law and what remains of the US Constitution, the following scenario should be a Giant
Wake up Call.
As the result of an anonymous "whistleblower"
Complaint
filed against President Trump on August 12, the House Intel Committee conducted a series of closed door hearings that
violated
Sixth Amendment
protections while
relying on an anonymous WB.
Right away, those hearings morphed into an impeachment inquiry that took on the spectacle of a clumsy kerfuffle
not to be taken seriously – except they were.
There is an essential Ukraine backstory which began with the US initiating the overthrow of its democratically
elected President Yanukovych in 2014.
Fast forward to Russiagate followed by Ukrainegate and an impeachment inquiry with Trump telling newly elected
Ukraine President Zelensky in their now infamous July 25th conversation:
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine; they say Crowdstrike. The
server they say, Ukraine has it<."
In a nutshell, possession of the CrowdStrike server is crucial to revealing the Democratic hierarchy's role in
initiating Russiagate as the Democrats are having a major snit-fit that now threatens the constitutional foundation
of the country.
On October 31st the House voted to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry based on still mysterious
Whistleblower's allegations. At the time, there was still no confirmation of who the shadowy Whistleblower was or
whether a Whistleblower even existed.
It is a fact that most whistleblowers bring the transgression
proudly forward
into the public light for the specific purpose of exposing the deeds that deserve to be exposed.
At great personal cost, they then provide a credible case for why this offense is illegal or a violation of the
public trust and deserves to be made public.
This alleged WB, however, defies the traditional definition of a WB who most often experiences the wrong-doing
first hand and from a personal vantage while revealing said wrong-doing as a function within an agency of their
employment.
This WB's identity has been protected from public disclosure by TPTB, shrouded in mystery and suspicion as if
fearful of public scrutiny or that his 'truth' would crumble under interrogation and not be greeted with unanimity.
What is clear is that this WB had no direct experience but only second-hand knowledge of events which is defined as
'hear say' evidence. While inadmissible in a Court of law, why should 'hear say' be allowed when the subject is as
profound as impeachment of a President?
Real-life CIA
whistleblower Jon Kiriakou
who served 22 months in prison, suggested this "
whistleblower is not a
whistleblower but a anonymous CIA analyst within the Democratic House staff
." When was the last time a real
whistleblower was 'protected' by the government from public exposure.
There has been no explanation as to why this informant's identity is necessarily been kept secret – and not just
from the public but from Members of Congress especially as Republican Members have been unable to question him.
There has been no further information regarding a second "Whistleblower" who allegedly came forward to corroborate
the first WB although why it is necessary to corroborate that which has already been publicly revealed remains
questionable.
In a once unimaginable example of CIA–Democratic collusion, it turns out that the identity of the alleged WB is
not such a secret after all.
Far from the public eyes of Americans, there has been a coordinated effort to stifle any exposure of his identity;
presumably to prevent any revelation of the underpinnings of exactly how this convoluted scheme of malfeasance was
organized. And as his name and political history within the Obama Administration and Democratic party are publicly
scrutinized, it makes perfect sense why the TPTB would prefer to prevent public hearings or keep the WB's identity
under wraps.
His identity should have been public knowledge weeks ago and yet it took
Real Clear Investigations
,
an alt-news website to publicly reveal what has been well known within
the DC bubble for some weeks.
The answer to the title question is that this WB is instead a very
well connected
partisan lackey and CIA operative.
The alleged WB is said to be a 33 year old
CIA analyst
by the name of Eric Ciaramella who was an Obama White House holdover at the National Security Council
until mid 2017.
Consequently, he has deep partisan ties to former VP Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan and former
National Security Advisor Susan Rice as well as the DNC establishment. And here's where it get especially
interesting; Ciaramella specializes in Russia and Ukraine, is fluent in both languages, ran the Ukraine desk at the
Obama NSC and had close association with Ukrainian DNC hyper-activist Alexandra Chalupa.
Ciaramella's bio reads like a litany of the political turmoil that has consumed the nation for the last three
years as it is reported that he had a role in initiating the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy while at the Obama
White House and worked with Biden who was the Obama point-person on Ukraine issues in 2015 and 2016 when
$3 billion USAID funding
was being embezzled.
Clearly, Ciaramella has a wealth of information to share regarding the Biden
Quid pro Quo scandal
which is currently being muzzled by the corporate media.
With Ciaramella's identity revealed, a former NSC staffer who was present during the Trump-Zelensky July 25th
conversation testified that he saw
nothing illegal
in the talk. Tim Morrison told the House Intel Committee that "
I want to be clear, I was not
concerned that anything illegal was discussed"
and that the transcript of the call which was declassified and
released by the White House "
accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call."
More recently, Mark Zaid, attorney for Ciaramella has said that his client would accept written questions from
Republicans on the House Intel Committee and that his client "
wants
to be as bipartisan
as possible throughout this process while remaining anonymous
."
Seriously? He's got to be kidding.
Did the reality of being required to testify in public just recently dawn on Ciaramella or was he not expecting
that his every word and utterance would be scrutinized before the entire world? Is he so unfamiliar with the Sixth
Amendment that he believes a Defendant's right to confront his accuser should not apply to him or in a Presidential
impeachment inquiry?
Did he actually believe he could make anonymous impeachment accusations against the President of the US without a
ripple or without having to directly face questions from House and Senate Republicans? Who did he think would
protect him from public scrutiny?
Given Ciaramella's extensive partisan history since 2015 and his national security experience with Susan Rice in
the Obama White House, it will be interesting if he receives a mention in the IG report on the abuse of FISA warrants
and whether Ciaramella's name has moved to the top of the Durham interviewee list.
Stephen Morrell
These inquiries always spiral out of the control of their instigators, and this one is becoming
positively delicious.
Seamus Padraig
Regarding the transcript of Trump's call, please tell me: what law/statute did he break? In order
for there to be a high crime or misdemeanor, there must first be
some
kind of crime or misdemeanor.
Tom
You cannot be serious! How about EXTORTION? As in holding up the money from Ukraine until they
agreed to look into his prime political opponent in the upcoming election (Biden). That's a
crime.
Or perhaps they will call it BRIBERY. That's a crime also.
Or moving on, how about receiving money from foreign interests in the form of forbidden
EMOLUMENTS, through, at a minimum, his Washington hotel or the foreign visitors spending heavily
at his gold courses? These venues generate revenue for the Trump organization, which he never
divested himself from.
Take your hands off of your ears and remove the wool from your eyes.
JudyJ
Tom
You mention "Bribery", and you mention "receiving money from foreign interests" both
in the context of Trump. I'm sorry but from where I stand there are far stronger suggestions
of that in the context of Biden and the undenied international connections of his son. You
appear to be taking the position that however serious the inferred misdemeanours (let me use
the term 'corruption') of Biden are, he does whatever he does – unlike Trump, of course – to
"put the health of the country first" (your words @ 8.41) and are by definition not deserving
of investigation. He's all heart, isn't he? Foolish of me not to see this.
Tom
Biden isn't VP any longer. The Republicans had complete control of Congress AND the
presidency for 2016/2017. If they wanted to investigate Biden, that would have been your
best the time to do it. So why do you supposed they didn't investigate Biden then? Might
it be that while Biden may have taken advantage of his political position, as so many
politicians do, what he did was not judged to be illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's
arse about Biden one way or another.
The attempts by you and others in your camp and
Trump himself to muddy the impeachment investigation and direct attention elsewhere are so
transparent as to be almost ludicrous.
You need to focus on what is most import to the USA and the people of this country –
the clear and present danger that President Trump represents!
Seamus Padraig
Here's the
full transcript
of the call with Zelensky. Now tell me: where's the "bribery" and
"extortion" there? Trump just asked Zelensky a favor–that's all.
Tom
You never watched any mafia movies have you?
Did you know that people have been
convicted of murder and sent to death row when they never even found the body? It's called
circumstantial evidence.
The same legal concept applies to Trump's conversations. Trump thought he was being
slick by not explicitly mentioning that the Ukraine president HAD to do this favor for him
to get the allocation released to him. 'Hey, I need ya to do me a favor first'
But just as with circumstantial evidence, a direct request is not necessary. An implied
one will do just as well. You are way out of your league trying to play lawyer here!
Martin Usher
I daresay they can get him on Emoluments and exceeding Constitutional authority. Impeachment
isn't like a criminal trial, its really about whether the official went against their oath to
"protect and defend the Constitution". This is the bit that President Trump doesn't quite
understand; everyone who's part of government swears an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution (so do naturalized citizens, BTW) and its this that they're loyal to, not an
individual. The individual only holds power because the Constitution gives it to them --
temporarily. (At the time of the founding of the US this was a bit of a novelty, the idea that
you owe fealty to an abstract concept rather than an individual, and many people even in this
country still don't get it.)
Ultimately, though -- as we found with Clinton in the 90s -- its
going to come down to "Because We Can". Personally I'd rather not bother, I'd just collect the
information, put it out there and let the electorate decide what's best for the country, but I'm
not running the show.
Martin Usher
This really didn't turn into an impeachment enquiry until the issue was forced by media partisanship.
President Trump has already crossed numerous boundaries that would get a normal President into trouble
and Ukraine was just another straw for the camel to carry. Next year is an election year and its
starting to look like the Democrats could field an actual donkey and still win the Presidency.
What's probably more damning than the whistleblower's original complaint is the testimony of Marie
Yovanaovitch, the US ambassador to Ukraine who had the rug pulled out from under her earlier this
year. I don't want to comment on her role in that country or the US's role in bringing 'freedom and
democracy' (aka "total chaos and economic ruin"), its more about the way that ill informed tweets and
media punditry by Fox News commentators such as Sean Hannity are undermining the work of the State
Department. Some might say this is a good thing but I personally believe that all this screwing
around, both with foreign relations and the economy, is doing the US demonstrable harm and probably
needs to have a stop put to it sooner rather later. This is not reality TV, this is serious stuff.
Those who've read my posts on this site will know that I've never been a fan of Russiagate or
interested in a renewed Cold War, its a road to nowhere. This is why I don't see the 'hand ofPutin'
everywhere, he's not the contemporary Illuminati and probably doesn't smoke (so no smoke filled
rooms). However, if I wanted to play international zero sum I would suggest that all Putin (and Xi)
needs to do to 'win' is to do nothing, just stand well back because the inevitable meltdown is going
to get really messy.
Tim Jenkins
Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance,
as does anybody with the slightest degree of scientific & analytical know how: yet you managed to
avoid any partisan accusations and mentioning his name: which would have been impossible in my case
Quality journalism Renée and the head of the House Intelligence Committee should be immediately investigated, prosecuted and may
I add, Not thrown in Prison, but Shot at Dawn, for TREASON USA
Something I used to write regularly in the Guardian, before they banned me, was
Never in the field of Human Conflict, has
so much been owed by so few to so many
MichaelK
The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on
collision course with the rest of the country.
The Democratic leadership have accepted that their
real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp
decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a
really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now.
The party top wants another 'conservative' and 'safe' candidate like Clinton so they can keep
control of the party and banish the 'dangerous left' once more. Only the party activists don't want
another 'Clinton' candidate that'll lead them towards another defeat.
So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking
'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment
where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days.
This process, removing political leaders using the Law, because they are corrupt, has been used in
several countries recently, for example in Brazil, where Lula was imprisoned and unable to stand for
election after a questionable trial.
Now, it's the turn of the USA. Whether the millions of Trump supporters will simply sit back and
watch this kind of 'legal coup' unfold, is another story.
mark
I think the reason for impeachment is not a substitute for an elusive electoral victory on the part
of the democrats.
It is actually far worse than that.
It is a case of "either we get him, or he gets us."
"Either we walk over him, or he walks over us."
They are simply trying to save their skins.
The Clinton/ Biden clans and their minions are now looking at serious jail time in a
winner-takes-all, high stakes, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners zero sum game.
The Deep State, the Spooks, the Dirty Cops, Wall Street, MIC, Hollywood and the MSM, and the
Democrat establishment, tried to rig the election to prevent Trump winning.
Having failed to achieve this, they tried to sabotage and delegitimise his administration by the
Russiagate hoax, planting spies in the White House, and corrupt and politicised investigations and
prosecutions of senior officials, using perjured and fabricated "evidence" from dubious foreign
sources (Steele, Dearlove, MI6, Ukraine.)
This is now a busted flush. Russiagate has been comprehensively debunked, however much the MSM
tries to pretend otherwise. Their criminality and corruption is being steadily and methodically
exposed for all the world to see.
Trump knows that impeachment would be just the beginning, not the end. They would not be content to
remove him from office, Nixon style. They want him broken, to make an example of him. They want him
in jail, bankrupt, his businesses broken up and his assets confiscated, his children and his
friends in jail with him. They won't settle for anything less than this.
The somewhat pathetic "Ukrainegate" saga is a smokescreen that his been thrown up in desperation at
short notice to try to snatch victory from defeat. It is becoming less and less credible as more
facts emerge. It seems to be based on little more than second or third hand gossip from rabidly
anti Trump sources, and is rapidly being discredited. No matter how much the MSM tries to big this
up, it will run its course leaving the anti Trump conspiracy even more nakedly exposed.
Trump and Barr have only to keep up the pressure to turn the tables.
Not that anyone should have any sympathy for Trump and his cronies. They all belong in jail, as do
the anti Trump faction. Ideally, they should all go to jail. It's a pity they can't all lose.
If you think it's all dirty and down in the gutter now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Let dog eat dog.
George Cornell
As your namesake Twain said, the more I see of people, the more I like of dogs. This is more
akin to cannibalism? I agree that we are just seeing the opening warmup acts now. But more like
unscripted unrehearsed professional wrestling every day.
nwwoods
Jail time? DC political elites? Not gone happen.
Tim Jenkins
MK Ultra good comment, upon which I could expand, but I don't want to give the game away, because I
reckon Trump's planning, timing and strategy is unstoppable, after he wins the next election.
All
will see and pretend that they knew all along what he was doing & going to do.
I should add, I'm on record @TheGuardian, stating that he would definitely win in 2016,
well in advance and nobody believed me, though it was easy to see & calculate, with sound analysis
of the key factors. It was obvious and I switched off, long before the announcement,
that he'd won, when they were still predicting HRC, knowing I was right, on that night.
I will tell you this much: It would be very silly of him to 'fire' the FED, before the elections
😉
phree
I have to disagree with Kiriakou and the author on this one. I'm a lawyer and I've been involved in
whistleblower cases on both sides. MANY whistleblowers do not want to go public. I'd say at least 50%
in my experience. And most whistleblowers have personal interests in addition to wanting to protect
the public interest -- they are looking for a pay day.
Plus, these attacks on this whistleblower for bias or lack of first hand knowledge really miss the
point: His claims have been almost entirely verified. There clearly was a quid pro quo (not that one
is necessary) as admitted by Mulvaney (before he tried to walk it back) and Sondland, and testified
about by others involved with Ukraine at the time. Since many National Security people were aghast at
these actions (including that die hard liberal Bolton), and Guliani says everything he was doing was
on behalf of his private client, there is no reason to think that this was a matter of national
security policy.
Indeed, the memo of Trump's phone call demonstrates the quid pro quo to any reasonable person -- it
certainly would be enough to indict a gangster. Do me a "favor" if you want me to sell you missiles?
That's not enough? Really? Especially when in order to buy the missiles you need the military
assistance money Trump was blocking.
Bbbbut what about the Bidens some whimper. Investigate them through proper channels, not by
blackmail through a back channel.
So, save your hair pulling for a whistleblower who's claims turn out to be false.
Northern
Your moral condemnation is evidently selective.
Bbbut what about the quid pro quo you whimper? Why don't you find some ordinary Ukrainian
citizens and ask them which was the greater evil; being thrust into civil war by rampaging mobs of
US sponsored neo-nazis, or the neo-nazi's not getting paid on time? Go re-asses your moral compass
you fascist sympathizer.
mark
The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country
unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly
bragged about.
Tom
Biden wasn't alone. Much of the rest of Europe was making the same call because the prosecutor
himself was corrupt. And why didn't the Republicans take this up when they had full control of
Congress during 2016/2017? I bet you can't come up with any kind of sensible answer!
Tim Jenkins
Use your real name or you are talking BOLLOCKS !
nwwoods
That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower".
Tom
Doesn't matter. Is the information correct? That's what you SHOULD be focusing on but then you
won't like how that further sullies the already awful reputation of your deity Trump.
mark
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and unconvincing,
given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I suppose we should all
welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the '
shomer
'
(guardian) of wistleblowers.
Dungroanin
Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the
conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co?
The report is – if not a
whitewash – going to ruin as many trousers and underwear as any explosive diarrhetic fart!
From Barry's stupid peace prize – to our stupid DS outlaws.
Especially if the tories carry on as they have started this election – with masterful pratfalls,
foot-in-mouths and devious lying, cheating and hiding.
When they've been employed by the CIA I'd say very, very rarely.
Real-life CIA whistleblower Jon Kiriakou who served 22 months in prison
Did he now? 22 months in prison and sentenced on 22 October. They love their 22s. Just as Chelsea
had 22 charges laid against her, was 22 at the time of her leaking and spent 22 hours a day in prison
for some of her alleged 7 year sentence.
His Wikipedia story does not sound in the least compelling. He allegedly disclosed the torture of
Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an aide to Osama bin Laden. So if bin Laden was an agent how real is
Zubaydah?
On December 10, 2007, Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News[16] in which he described his
participation in the capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was accused of having been an aide to Al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden. Kiriakou said that he did not witness Zubaydah's interrogation, but had
been told by CIA associates that it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to
extract answers:
He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably
30, 35 seconds and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that
Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.[17]
Following the interview, Kiriakou's accounts of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding were widely
repeated and paraphrased,[Note 1][6] and he became a regular guest expert on news and public
affairs shows on the topics of interrogation and counter-terrorism.
In 2009, however, it was reported that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times,[18]
and that little or no useful additional information may have been gained by "harsh methods" of
interrogation.[19][20] Kiriakou had been under the mistaken belief that Zubaydah was waterboarded
only once, and even that single instance he had described as a form of torture while expressing
reservations about whether the value of the information obtained was worth the damage done to the
United States' reputation.[citation needed]
Kiriakou has said that he chose not to blow the whistle on torture through internal channels
because he believed he "wouldn't have gotten anywhere" because his superiors and the congressional
intelligence committees were already aware of it.[21]
OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?
Tim Jenkins
"OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?"
yep, it does actually: when you finally suss out what Bill
Binney was telling you all about; about 6 years before you profess to have taken an interest in the
events leading up to and including those that occurred on the 11th sept. 2001 and of course, the
missing D.o.D $$$TRILLIONS$$$ and what they spent the money on >>>
Like "Parallel Platforms" !
mark
What's a mere missing $21 trillion between friends?
Probably just fallen down the back of the sofa.
Along with the 140 tons of Libyan gold and the 1,500 tons of German gold and the Ukrainian
gold and the gold from WTC 7 and the Venezuelan gold ..
There's a perfectly simple explanation for everything if you look hard enough.
mark
China is the biggest gold producer in the world, with over 400 tons a year, none of which
is ever seen outside the country.
There has been speculation that their holdings are over 10,000 tons, but nobody really
knows.
This follows the historical pattern over thousands of years, China exporting silk, spices,
quality ceramics and tea, and taking silver bullion in payment. Europe was drained of
silver until the looting of the New World.
Some people believe that America has 8,300 tons, a figure unchanged since 1971. But then
again some people believe in fairies and Father Christmas.
Democrats?. You just stand
back and watch them implode. It's painful to watch some days I'll tell ya
George Cornell
Debbie does the Dems. Wasserperson Schultz , where are you when your party needs some deep
corruption?
Keeping an émigré in charge of the foreign policy towards that country. What could go wrong?
Notable quotes:
"... Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine." ..."
"... Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett – to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe. ..."
"... Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We'll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense. ..."
"... Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression ." ..."
"... The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments. ..."
"... Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic community" clearly imply just that. ..."
"... A certain colonel named "Colonel" Vindman is secretly running the White House's foreign policy with a secret globalist agenda right under the Donald Trump's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way, is about as battlefield hero as Melania Trump). The outcome? The American foreign policy in shambles, a total sham, a farce on steroids, a schizo chaos of competing special interests, payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck, foreign influence-peddling and deepstatism. ..."
"... "It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe" (Ukraine). Well done boys. Another Libya? There is a pattern here. ..."
The current
frenzy to impeach President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be hidden about the operation
of the Deep State inside the federal government. Congress is currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants
in what will inevitably be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political quid pro quo
from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The
prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security
Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated
to the United States with his family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some capacity
in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart. Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and
Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include
a key role in Pentagon planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing US policy towards that
country, but that is not really what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the US government's sole genuine Ukrainian
expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine,
and, by extension, regarding Moscow's involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy,
reads. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough
to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict
as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains
in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious
little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began
implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy.
While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined
US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to
his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone
on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett
– to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change
was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger
Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing
behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign
aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe.
Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on Russian President Vladimir Putin and the
established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security.
The preferred solution is to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the Russians.
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We'll Go To
War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was
focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for
Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and
prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman's prepared statement: " .I was worried about the implications for the US government's
support of Ukraine . I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted
as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained ."
Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer
to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding.
He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has manifested
an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional
hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further
confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because
Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression ."
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion
of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its
imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United
States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important
American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US
Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments.
It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole through his statement's praise of the
train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes "In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major
steps towards integrating with the West . The US government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelensky
and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize
its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working
together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community
."
Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments
about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic community" clearly imply just that. The expansion of NATO up to Russia's
borders by the rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities of the twentieth
century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that error as both are vital national security interests
for Moscow given their history and geography. Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has brought
so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness
and a uniform, should be regarded as little more than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.
Exactly 100 years ago, in 1919, a certain colonel named "Colonel" House was secretly running the White House's foreign policy
with a secret globalist agenda right under the Woodrow Wilson's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way, was neither an army officer,
nor the battlefield hero - in fact, he was about as much of a colonel as Colonel Parker). The outcome? The post-World War 1 "new
world order" (which was neither new, nor order, nor global in any sense) that was a nightmare on steroids, a humpty-dumpty Frankenstein
that gave birth to both Nazism and Bolshevism as well as Globalist Elitism, American Exceptionalism, and New Deal Neoliberalism
and was every satanist's wet dream. Short of procreating Beelzebub and Baphomet, "Colonel" House just about did 'em all.
Fast forward 100 years, back to the future: year 2019 AD. A certain colonel named "Colonel" Vindman is secretly running
the White House's foreign policy with a secret globalist agenda right under the Donald Trump's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way,
is about as battlefield hero as Melania Trump). The outcome? The American foreign policy in shambles, a total sham, a farce on
steroids, a schizo chaos of competing special interests, payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck, foreign
influence-peddling and deepstatism.
So, yes, Karl Marx was, for once, right. History really does repeat itself. It first comes as a tragedy and then returns the
second time around as an inbred farce. Or a slapstick.
A vet with a Purple Heart can be a piece of crap just like anyone else. Neither status is akin to sainthood. In fact this guy should be ashamed of the way the US government has wronged Ukraine and he is a damned big part of it.
It is absolutely mind boggling how the Democrats get away with making up false claims over and over but the real losers are voters who are paying useless jack asses to do nothing. What has the House done ? Further testimony to the farce is Mr. Magoo , Sessions , thinking he might have some contribution to make .
And Vindman sat with his whistle up his *** while Biden played pay to play and blackmailed Ukraine into dropping the investigation of the company his under qualified over paid son sat on. Biden let his ego overtake reason and admitted on tape what he did . Held back payment to Ukraine unless a judge was off the
case .
What did Vindman do about that ? Was he in on it ? Vindman is a patsy and a gossip . Nothing more . OK except for lying about his deep Democrat attachments . The guy looks like a deer in headlights but he is just being used .
A vet with a Purple Heart can be a piece of crap just like anyone else. Neither status is akin to sainthood. In fact this guy should be ashamed of the way the US government has wronged Ukraine and he is a damned big part of it.
"... The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. ..."
"... We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. ..."
"... Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies, particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly, they have not been. ..."
"... However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty. ..."
Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things about
Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the process, we
have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic Party
establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no
"attack" in 2016, only, as I have
previously explained , ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both Russia and America
have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more phobic than the
allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And yet this myth and
its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse, campaigning, and
fund-raising. We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies
under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of
National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential
candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this
operation " Intelgate ," and it has
since been well documented by other writers, including
Lee Smith in his new book . Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain
leading, and equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed
such transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will
leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain. We also
learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully
trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem
eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and
his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's
critics accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report. And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by
Democrats about Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations
that truly endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can
elude US missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative
and urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if
he is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did
his predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge"
accusations still being directed at him? Similarly, as I have asked repeatedly, if confronted
with a US-Russian Cuban missile–like crisis -- anywhere Washington and Moscow are
currently eyeball-to-eyeball militarily, from the Baltic region and Ukraine to Syria -- will
Trump be as free politically as was President John F. Kennedy to resolve it without war? Here
too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss
national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both
Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous presidents were free to
negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged to do so, whereas the
demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly dangerous, not only due to
reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility of hot war. Whether President
Trump serves one or two terms, he must be fully empowered to cope with the multiple
possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation. That requires ridding him and our nation
of Russiagate allegations -- and that in turn requires learning how such allegations
originated.
Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible
or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based
in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies,
particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly,
they have not been.
However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not
fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed.
It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back
away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on
Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. A Ukrainian-American operative who
was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian
Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul
Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. The
Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and
advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the
east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged
hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Politico, January 11, 2017
Still, Trump critics insist the pressure the president exerted on Ukraine, and the desire to
receive dirt on Biden for 2020, was implicit.
The same month of Zaid's 2017 "coup" tweet, Sen. Charles Schumer, a leader in the Democrat
party, issued a public warning to Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has "
six ways from Sunday
" to "get back at you". MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow asked Schumer, "What would the intelligence
community do?" Schumer answered, "I don't know," but went on to say the intel community was
very upset with Trump.
On Aug. 15, 2016, after FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and his FBI girlfriend Lisa
Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texted Page that they couldn't take the
risk of Trump getting elected without having "an insurance policy" in place.
Another figure, Benjamin Wittes, chose the same phrase. In October 2016, in his Lawfare
blog, Wittes
wrote : "What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald
Trump's actually winning the Presidency."
Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey . Wittes spoke to a New York Times
reporter about Comey's interactions with President Trump , right after Robert Mueller 's appointment as special
counsel.
In a 2016 blog post, Wittes wrote that his vision of an "insurance policy" against Trump
would rely on a "Coalition of All Democratic Forces" to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the
courts as a "tool" and Congress as "a partner or tool." He even mentioned impeachment -- two
weeks before Trump was elected.
Read more: What would the intelligence community's "insurance policy" against Trump look
like? Click the link below.
v> I keep hearing responses that this impeachment process is about 'procedure'. Are
there criminal/ prosecutable consequences for pushing forth this impeachment process on an
unfounded basis or political bias? How about false accusations and claims by Schiff? If this
is just a stall to impede the progress of the President to prevent his and our success,
especially with all the malfeasance and corruption that is being exposed the last three years
from his opposition and previous administration, can and will there be legal consequences to
Schiff and company's incompetence, ineffectivenesss, abuse, and attacks? What is it that can
be held legally against those who have been pushing this impeachment without proper basis,
just their contempt for the man with over 60 million votes who won an election rigged against
him? Will there be an impeachment in every future administration on this current basis?
60 Minutes (Of Lies) interviewed Joe Biden allowing him a platform to do damage control
about his crimes in Ukraine & spread lies against the Justice Department!
This is not an interview. They do not listen to each other. And only Bannon mentions
CrowdStrike. Cooper is trying to present he this whole thin that Trump going after Biden. Biden
is ideal opponent for Trump. And CrowdStrike is much more important
Cooper, we had the Mueller investigation, impeachment hearing after hearing, opposition to
supreme court picks etc. Aren't you interested in the truth, why can't investigations be
launched in the other direction. Honest question! Why can't democrats be investigated? As if
they could do no wrong! America has a problem within the DNC and with leftist
politics.....
ionlink " data-sessionlink="itct=CBQQtnUiEwi4paSI1tnlAhWF9ZwKHZhDBgw"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HRyTTIyBA&t=232s"> 3:52 4:09 : Cooper: "the president
has access to--we have corruption-fighters in the Treasury-Department. He could have called
up Steve Minuchin and said, 'You know what? Give me a list of most corrupt players in
Ukraine. I'll talk to the president about it.' He didn't. The only thing he cites as a favor
is crowd-strike server Biden." Cooper exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the
organizational hierarchy of the executive branch of the federal government. Subordinate
federal officers, such as Treasury Secretary Minuchin and his "corruption-fighters," serve at
the pleasure of the president. Trump could dismiss Minuchin any time. Minuchin serves the
president. The president does not serve or take orders from his cabinet-officials. The
president is not obliged to delegate tasks to his subordinates, though he may choose to do
so, at his pleasure. The primary responsibility for enforcing law is the president's, not his
subordinates' . Again, it is not the business of the US to investigate or prosecute
corruption among Ukrainian officials. That is President Zelensky's duty. Trump''s duty is to
investigate and prosecute corruption of US officials. 5:58 : Cooper: "Democrats would
argue with you, saying, 'you know what hurts the United States is using taxpayer-money as a
weapon, against an ally, who's fighting our enemy..' It's not like it's Donald Trump's money,
saying, buying information about the Bidens." It's not only Trump's money, but he has a share
in it, as a US taxpayer. As president, he is the custodian of that aid, until it is
transferred to Ukraine. He has a duty to treat it prudently. Donald Trump prudently and
judiciously delayed transfer of the aid to Ukraine until he was reasonably sure, from
assurances from anti-corruption President Zelensky, that the aid would serve the purposed
intended, to defend Ukraine against Russia, not vanish into the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian
or US officials. That delay is rational, given the long track-record of Ukrainian corruption.
Trump did not use the aid "as a weapon." 6:28 : Cooper: "...cite some
specific thing. There's no evidence...The president hasn't cited any evidence. He's just
throwing this out and he said, 'Oh, in China too.' He hasn't cited anything. There's no
facts." Again, Cooper exhibits his fundamental misunderstanding of fundamental principles.
Trump was calling for an investigation. He has not concluded anything yet. The infamous
videotaped statements of Joe Biden that he threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine, unless
the Ukrainians fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son's gas-company and that,
within six hours, that prosecutor was fired and the aid delivered, raises suspicion of
corruption, but only suspicion. The purpose of a criminal investigation is to collect and
ascertain evidence. At the instigation of an investigation, the evidence is obviously not
collected or ascertained yet. That collection and ascertainment comes with the passage of
time and the effort of investigators. 8:51 Cooper: "I think a kid,
being on a board, I think it's shady. I think it makes no sense." Bannon: "Shady? It's
corrupt." Precisely, but only suspicion of corruption. Before, Cooper was objecting that
Trump cited no evidence, because he, Trump, only had tentative suspicion of Biden's
corruption, not conclusive evidence. In the last passage, Cooper concedes precisely the same
sort of suspicion. He thus arguably contradicted himself.
'No, you don't. It's both psychologically possible and not at all inconsistent to
object to a general strategy, and to object how the strategy is being used for personal
gain.'
Possible but not likely. How many establishment Dems (or even non-establishment Dems)
have indicated that they have any objections to arming the Ukrainians? That would be in the
region of about 'none', I would imagine. While what I assume your position is logically
consistent (although bizarre .'I think it's disgusting that the US is giving weapons to the
Ukrainians although I'm not prepared to do anything about that, but Trump, who threatened to
stop doing this, he must be impeached, because he was threatening to stop arming the
Ukrainians, which, to repeat, I approve of, for the wrong reasons.' .it's a logically
consistent but deeply weird argument), it's very obviously not the Democrats' position.
The Democrats position is that arming the Ukrainians is a good and moral thing to do and
that Trump is terrible for threatening to stop it, which is far simpler, far more logical and,
if one ignores its flagrant immorality, far easier to 'swallow'.
As always 'reversing the polarities' gives clarity (imagine I worked for Putin, who was
arming MS-13, and then Putin put me on trial because, for whatever reason, I stopped arming
MS-13 .what would we think of Putin?).
It's not even clear what motive Trump has. Biden has as much chance of being President as I
have, he won't be the Presidential candidate, this wasn't an 'attack' on him, it was an attack
on his son, who Biden could easily distance himself from even on its own terms the accusation
make absolutely no sense. It does, however, focus a laser like light on the Bidens's activities
in the Ukraine, which may not be something that the Democrats really want to happen, for all
kinds of reasons.
The current
frenzy
to impeach
President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be
hidden about the operation of the Deep State inside the federal government.
Congress is
currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants in what will inevitably
be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political
quid
pro quo
from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The
prepared
opening statement
by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert
on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC
actually works.
Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated to the United States with his
family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some
capacity in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart.
Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and
military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include a key role in Pentagon
planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in
articulating and managing US policy towards that country, but that is not really what his role on
the NSC should have been.
As more than likely the US government's sole genuine Ukrainian
expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise
vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow's involvement with
Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy, reads. Rather than
providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding
quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems
with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the
Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from
the US taxpayer.
Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part
its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though
he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is
revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy
on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine
inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.
This
narrative was harmful to US government policy. While
my interagency colleagues and I
were
becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US
government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State
rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision
making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President
Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett –
to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close
to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State
Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President
Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing
behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet
governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in
Europe.
Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on
Russian President Vladimir Putin and the established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the
political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security. The preferred solution is
to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the
Russians.
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn
reported to By Jingo We'll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring
down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up
the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for
Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective
was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any
sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman's prepared statement: " .I was worried about
the implications for the US government's support of Ukraine . I realized that if Ukraine pursued an
investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which
would undoubtedly
result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far
maintained
."
Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would
benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if
Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go
on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has
manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid
warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to
dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the
West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security
interests because
Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression
."
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave
Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering.
Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its imperial ambitions, if they
actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the
United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet
Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows
that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he
repeats the conventional arguments.
It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole
through his statement's praise of the train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes "In spite of being
under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards
integrating
with the West
. The US government policy community's view is that the election of President
Volodymyr Zelensky and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's
Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and
economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working
together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is
integrated into the
Euro-Atlantic community
."
Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is
his actual objective, but his comments about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic
community" clearly imply just that.
The expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders by the
rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities
of the twentieth century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that
error as both are vital national security interests for Moscow given their history and geography.
Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has
brought so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his
testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness and a uniform, should be regarded as little more
than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.
Exactly 100 years ago, in 1919, a
certain colonel named "Colonel"
House was secretly running the
White House's foreign policy with
a secret globalist agenda right
under the Woodrow Wilson's
nose (a "colonel" who, by the
way, was neither an army officer,
nor the battlefield hero - in
fact, he was about as much of a
colonel as Colonel Parker). The
outcome? The post-World War 1
"new world order" (which was
neither new, nor order, nor
global in any sense) that was a
nightmare on steroids, a
humpty-dumpty Frankenstein that
gave birth to both Nazism and
Bolshevism as well as
Globalist Elitism, American
Exceptionalism, and New Deal
Neoliberalism and was every
satanist's wet dream. Short of
procreating Beelzebub and
Baphomet, "Colonel" House just
about did 'em all.
Fast
forward 100 years, back to the
future: year 2019 AD. A certain
colonel named "Colonel" Vindman
is secretly running the White
House's foreign policy with a
secret globalist agenda right
under the Donald Trump's nose (a
"colonel" who, by the way, is
about as battlefield hero as
Melania Trump). The outcome? The
American foreign policy in
shambles, a total sham, a farce
on steroids, a schizo chaos of
competing special interests,
payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo
big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck,
foreign influence-peddling and
deepstatism.
So, yes, Karl Marx was, for
once, right. History really does
repeat itself. It first comes as
a tragedy and then returns the
second time around as an
inbred farce. Or a slapstick.
He served our nation with
distinction, and his
testimony is in line with
what we heard from the
diplomats and Sandberg who
keeps twisting himself into
a brezel.
Managed to
grab the 4th post in just a
few seconds for your Jewz
insertion. Keep up the bad
work, true professional that
you are - BTW, how much in
American money ??? Per word
or post ???
Another dipshitz, another
thread; FOAD, please soon.
House Democrats on Tuesday released excerpts of closed-door depositions with former US
Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker, as well as revised testimony from US Ambassador to
the EU, Gordon Sondland which was a complete reversal from what he said in text messages
revealed last month as well as prior testimony.
In them, Sondland reveals in four new pages of sworn testimony he told a top Ukrainian
official that a meeting with President Trump may be contingent upon its new
administration committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to the New York
Times.
Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the
Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the
president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. -New York Times
Bloomberg reports "Sondland testified that a promise by Ukraine to investigate Joe
Biden's son and the 2016 election was a condition that "would have to be complied with"
for the country's leaders to get a meeting with Trump."
"That was my understanding," he said.
SO if that is Sondland's [mis]understanding, let's compare. Read his Sept 9 text message
to Taylor.
The image of Biden and son in link, speaks truth. Take a look.
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be
impeached and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?[.]
According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a
transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President
Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the
Donbass.
Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was
not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons
to Ukraine altogether?
The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He
passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press
conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would
not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky
requested.
Again, where is the body of the crime? [.]
By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro
Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a
prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?
Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed
to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund
from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.[.]
The article , written by Breitbart senior investigative reporter New York Times bestselling author and Aaron Klein, details how
Ciaramella was central to the Obama administration's Ukraine policy - including the eventual signing of a $1 billion US loan guarantee
after former VP Joe Biden pressured them into firing the guy investigating an energy company paying his son to sit on their board
, Burisma Holdings.
In response to Trump Jr. tweeting Ciaramella's name, journalist Yashar Ali (who worked for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential
campaign) contacted Don Jr., who told him " The outrage on this is BS. And those pretending that I would coordinate with The White
House to send out a Breitbart link haven't been watching my feed for a long time ."
Don Jr. then tweeted "The entire media is #Triggered that I (a private citizen) tweeted out a story naming the alleged whistleblower.
Are they going to pretend that his name hasn't been in the public domain for weeks now? Numerous people & news outlets including
Real Clear Politics already ID'd him."
Trump Jr.'s 'outing' of Ciaramella comes one day after Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he was considering releasing the whistleblower's
name, and claimed that he may be involved in Ukraine corruption.
Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced
by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
US foreign policy is driven by "diaspora politics" - double traitors who first betrayed
their home country and are now betraying the US in the name of their nationalist Nazi
ideology and their desire to wage war on Russia.
My friend George Eliason has expanded on the topic.
After weeks of secretive impeachment proceedings from which House Democrats have largely excluded
Republican lawmakers, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA)
announced on Twitter
Wednesday that
his committee will hold its first public impeachment hearings next week
.
Unsurprisingly, those with the most damaging testimony will be peddled out, while witnesses who
gave exonerating testimony such as special envoy Kurt Volker and Ambassador Gordon Sondland are
notably absent from the roster.
First up? On Wednesday, November 13 the panel will hear from
Bill Taylor
- the
top US diplomat in Ukraine who told house investigators last month that he believes there was a
quid pro quo between the Trump administration and Ukraine.
Taylor notably expressed his concerns in a Sept. 9 text message to US ambassador to the EU,
Gordon Sondland, saying: "
I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with
a political campaign.
"
To which Sondland, dictating from Trump, replies "
Bill, I believe you are incorrect
about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any
kind,
" adding "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
Sondland, meanwhile, 'updated' his earlier testimony to clarify that he told a top Ukrainian
official that the country would need to commit to investigating former VP Joe Biden and other
Democrats in exchange for the release of nearly $400 million in US military aid.
"I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public
anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," said Sondland. That said,
Sondland also testified that his quid pro quo comments were
his
opinion,
and that President Trump specifically said he did not want one.
Also testifying next Wednesday will be State Department official George Kent
,
who testified that he was told to "lay low" on Ukraine matters, before being edged out on Ukraine
policy by Sondland according to the
New
York Times
.
Lastly,
recalled US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch will testify on Friday
. She
privately told House investigators that Rudy Giuliani and his associates led a campaign to have her
ousted based on claims that she was blocking Ukraine from investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian gas
company paying Hunter Biden to sit on its board.
A good politician should of course be sensitive to both public opinion and to potential
allies, so of course Pelosi should take into account Republicans who might want to nail
Trump. If there were enough of those in the Senate, he might even get removed from
office!
Do you suggest that this is not a pro-wrestling type of exercise, a dirty media-oriented
trick designed to increase the chances of Dem neoliberal candidate (supposedly Warren) to win
the 2020 election? And that Schiff serves any other role then reincarnation of Maddow, and want
to get to the bottom of the dirty deals between the US officials and their Ukrainian puppets
both adamant to fleece Ukrainian population via the debt trap and enrich themselves in the
process (the standard of living in Ukraine dropped probably two times after 2014 and now is on
the level of central African countries ($2 a day or so for bottom 50%) , while currency
depreciated around 300%) ?
And truth be told Warren is just a careerist with sharp elbows, who does not challenge the
establishment narrative (kind of Eisenhower republican) and while like Trump during election
campaign she attacks FIRE sector, she most probably will fold in best Obama "change we can
believe in" fashion and will continue imperial foreign policy, while giving some necessary but
limited relief to deplorables domestically in order to prevent mass protests. I want to be
wrong is this assessment, but we have what we have.
I would recommend you to read Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc., which might help to educate you about
intricacies of the US neoliberal political scene. Among other things, he provides an
interesting assessment of "MadCow" style media personalities and their assigned roles: FOX vs.
MSBNC with Maddow "a depressingly exact mirror" of Hannity. Both Sean and Rachel maintain the
bipartisan consensus for ever-increasing military budgets, for everlasting wars, for
ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of and tax breaks for multinationals and
FIRE sector.
And how the range of opinions has been artificially and skillfully narrowed and emasculated
long before you get to hear it.
The idea is to manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent. That's
by-and-large is what the impeachment process is about.
I can't take anyone seriously once they start denying the Russian influence operation.
Even if we abstract from a distinct neo-McCarthyism smell of such a statement, you are
completely out of touch with reality.
This is not about Russia, or Ukraine, or quid pro quo in supplying weapons to Ukraine
(it is unclear why Liberasts (note the Russian term) think that it is a good thing; it does not
change the balance of power in the region and they might ends in the hands of Ukrainian far
right; kind of Christian Taliban ) .
This is about out of control intelligence agencies (and first of all CIA) as well as
factions of neoliberals/neocons in the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and
Pentagon who want to prevent any change of the USA imperial policies.
In other words, this is about well-being of a loyal (and well paid) imperial troops who want
to preserve their franchise and money flows despite the obvious signs of weakening and/or
disintegration of the US led global neoliberal empire (China, Russia, Iran and other "axis of
resistance" states; frictions with EU, Brexit, etc ) by deposing the current "Emperor" and
installing their own puppet. Kind of Praetorian Guard ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/Praetorian-Guard
) revolt in a modern incarnation.
The hawkish mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own political
fortunes but also global peace...
Last week's vote by House Democrats to formally open an impeachment inquiry of President Donald
Trump followed testimony that appeared to boost their case. Several US officials told Congress that
the Trump administration sought to leverage US military aid to pressure Ukraine into opening
politically tainted investigations.
But liberals cheering on these developments should be
mindful of their limitations -- and their potential consequences.
The available testimony does
not strike me as being as damning for Trump as it is being portrayed. More importantly, even if that
proves to be a faulty interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a dangerous Cold
War mentality that could threaten their own election chances in 2020.
The Democrats' theory of the case is plausible: At the same time as Trump's chosen point man, EU
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, pressured Ukraine to launch politically beneficial investigations, the
president froze military aid as a tool of added leverage. But
although the available testimony
helps the impeachment case so far, we have not uncovered a smoking gun.
Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, says that Sondland told him that the military
assistance was conditioned on a Ukrainian pledge to open investigations into Burisma, the company
where Hunter Biden got his lucrative board seat, and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US
election. Taylor also offered the first known testimony that this demand was made explicit to the
Ukrainian side: According to Taylor, National Security Council aide Tim Morrison told him that
Sondland directly communicated the quid pro quo to Andriy Yermak, an aide to Ukraine's prime minister,
Volodymyr Zelensky, at a meeting in Warsaw in September 1.
Morrison corroborated Taylor's testimony in his appearance last week. But we do not yet know
whether Morrison witnessed the Sondland-Yermak conversation that he told Taylor about, or is relying
on his recollection of what Sondland told him. This would allow Sondland to claim that Morrison
misinterpreted him.
What is certain is that Morrison left some wiggle room for Trump.
His opening
statement says that he and Taylor "had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector
assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation" until he
spoke to Sondland in Warsaw on September 1. "Even then," he added, "I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's
strategy was exclusively his own," and not Trump's. According to CNN,
Morrison
testified
that he tried to find out whether Sondland was relaying demands to the Ukrainian side on
Trump's behalf, or was "going rogue" as a "free radical." The fact that Morrison suspected that
Sondland's "strategy was exclusively his own" means that his testimony did not directly implicate
Trump. And it leaves Trump with the leeway to claim that Sondland, and perhaps Rudolph Giuliani, were
indeed "going rogue."
It is perfectly reasonable to deduce from all of this that what Sondland relayed -- if that is what he
did -- is exactly what Trump intended. Or indeed that Sondland was acting on Trump's orders. But a case
that can only be made from inference may have limited impact beyond those who have already made up
their mind. Even if Trump knew exactly what Sondland was doing, Morrison's testimony leaves him with
the opportunity to throw Sondland under the bus. For his part, Sondland
has
said through his attorney
that he rejects Taylor's characterizations and does not recall the
Warsaw conversation that Taylor (and now Morrison) claim to have heard about.
For Taylor and Morrison's testimony to prove dispositive -- and to make a convincing case to the
broader US public and the Senate Republicans who will decide Trump's fate -- corroborating testimony or
evidence will have to emerge that Trump explicitly linked the military aid to investigations of Biden
and that this demand was explicitly communicated to the Ukrainian side.
That corroboration has yet to come from Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has said that it
did not feel pressured.
The New York Times
reported
that
Ukrainian officials were made aware that US military aid was on hold by the first week in August,
earlier than previously known. Yet communications between US and Ukrainian officials, the
Times
writes,
"did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the
investigations." Nor was the aid freeze mentioned in Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky.
Yermak, reached via WhatsApp, did not respond to
The Nation
's request for comment. His
testimony will now be critical. As will follow-up testimony by Sondland. Perhaps Taylor and Morrison
are accurately recounting Sondland's words. Or perhaps Sondland will contradict them, or claim that
they are conflating the investigations that Trump sought from Ukraine. As I've
argued
previously
,
demanding an investigation of
documented
(
and
openly acknowledged
)
Ukrainian
meddling
in the 2016 elections is different from demanding one of a political rival.
All of this positions us for a "he said, he said" impeachment scandal:
The question of whether or not Trump is guilty of attempting to extort Ukraine could come down to
which US bureaucrat, one chooses to believe.
There is no reason to put faith in Sondland, who, in line with a longstanding tradition in
US diplomacy, owes his plush diplomatic posting to a lucrative campaign donation to the winning
presidential candidate.
But before we embrace bureaucrats Taylor, Morrison, and another key
witness, NSC official Alexander Vindman, as liberal heroes, it is worth taking stock of their
impartiality and espoused views. Despite efforts to portray them as nonpartisan civil servants, the
trio's opening statements show them to be Cold Warriors devoted to continuing the US-Russia proxy war
in Ukraine. As their testimony makes clear, that proxy war was imperiled by the very action that Trump
took -- briefly freezing the military aid that they all unabashedly support.
In
the
case of Taylor
, arming Ukraine was a condition of his willingness to serve in the job. When the
Trump administration asked him to take the position in Kiev, Taylor recalls thinking, "I could be
effective only if the US policy of strong support for Ukraine were to continue." Taylor even told
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, "If US policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted
there and I could not stay." No wonder then, that Taylor was upset when he began to hear rumblings
that US military assistance to Ukraine was in jeopardy.
Another star witness, Vindman,
offers
a similar outlook
. Russia, he says, "has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy"
necessitating "a deterrent."
To Vindman, that deterrent is "a strong and independent
Ukraine," which, he believes, is "critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a
frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression." Morrison concurs,
declaring
that the administration's policy
"was to make sure the United States' longstanding bipartisan
commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered." In his view, "security sector
assistance is, therefore, essential to Ukraine."
Given their open dedication to ensuring the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine, it is
reasonable to question if the trio's interpretations of decisions and conversations about freezing
military aid were colored by their own policy preferences. As
The
Washington Post
put
it
, Vindman "told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by
the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy." While undoubtedly many Democrats and Republicans share
Vindman's foreign policy views, it should be up to the president, not unelected bureaucrats, to decide
US foreign policy.
Even if their recollections are accurate, the consequence of embracing their collective
worldview is worth considering.
We do not need wade far into the intricacies of the
Russia-Ukraine conflict to know that the position of Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison -- and by extension,
the entire liberal political and media establishment now cheering them -- is well to the right of what
the Democratic Party embodied just one administration ago.
The very US military assistance that Trump froze is the same that President Barack Obama refused to
provide during his last years in office. Obama feared, as
The New York Times
noted in 2015,
that US weapons sent to Ukraine "
would
only escalate the bloodshed
" in the Donbass and possibly
"[end]
up in the hands of thugs
" (a likely reference to far-right Ukrainians, which proved prescient).
In refusing to send that US military aid, Obama rejected intense pressure from the bipartisan DC
foreign policy establishment. This includes Taylor himself, who, as he notes in his opening statement,
unsuccessfully lobbied Obama to arm Ukraine. Taylor's contemporaneous view is captured in a December
2014 letter he wrote to
The
Washington Post
. Taylor denounced an opinion article,
co-authored by a former Obama State Department official, that had opposed sending US arms to Ukraine
and advocated an agreement between NATO and Russia to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Backers of such
steps, Taylor wrote, are "advocating that the West appease Russia. Now is not the time for
appeasement."
The very fact that Ukrainegate now has Democrats advocating a policy that Obama rejected
should be enough to spark consideration of whether briefly not arming Ukraine is really the issue on
which to pin removing a president from office.
Moving toward impeachment over Ukraine policy
also has potential electoral consequences: In 2016, voters rejected the neoconservative worldview that
national security bureaucrats like Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison now espouse. Trump, after all,
campaigned on improving ties with Russia and falsely presented himself as an opponent of the hawkish
legacy that these star impeachment witnesses embody. On this note, the fact that John Bolton
may
become the Democrats'
next
star
witness
might also hasten some reflection.
The Cold War mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own
political fortunes but also global peace.
Lost in the outrage over Trump's
potential -- and ultimately unrealized -- interruption of US military assistance to Ukraine is that Zelensky,
the new Ukrainian president, openly campaigned on
ending
the war with Russia
that this military assistance fuels. Zelensky is now
under
heavy pressure from Ukraine's far right
to abandon his pledge to make peace with Moscow. It does
not bode well for Zelensky's chances if the official opposition party of his US patron is effectively
joining hands with his country's own right-wing forces to continue the war.
The dangers extend beyond Ukraine's borders. The day after the House impeachment vote,
Russia warned that there is not enough time left to renegotiate the New START Treaty, the last
remaining accord limiting the US and Russian nuclear arsenals, before it expires in 2021.
The
treaty's demise,
The
New
York Times
notes
, would leave the world's top two nuclear powers "free to expand their
arsenals without limits" on "the most powerful weapons both sides can launch." According to Vladimir
Leontyev, Russia's top arms control official, the Kremlin hopes to renew or revise the accord, but
"the US administration is silent about it." The Russians' impression, Leontyev added, is that the
Trump White House "is organically against any restrictions being imposed on the United States."
The Russian warning, the
Times
adds, is "the latest in a sobering list of signals that the
great powers appear
headed
for a new arms race
," following Trump's
earlier
withdrawal
from another critical nuclear accord, the INF Treaty. It is also the latest
in
a
long
list
of
Trump
administration
policies
that
have
escalated
tensions
with
nuclear-armed
Russia
-- including
authorizing
the US military assistance
to Ukraine that Obama once opposed and that Democrats now seek to
impeach him over.
The fact that this list includes increasing the threat of nuclear
conflict should be sobering to any liberal who continues to push the falsehood that Trump does
Russia's bidding
-- all the more so given that the propagation of this falsehood helps
worsen, rather than reduce, those tensions.
There is another list worth being mindful of: The many Trump administration scandals that
Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, overshadows. The day after the House impeachment vote also
coincided
with the end of the comment period
for a Trump administration plan to cut food programs for
low-income Americans. According to government estimates, around 3 million recipients face the loss of
food stamp benefits and close to 1 million children are at risk of losing automatic placement in
federal school lunch programs.
"Instead of declaring a war on poverty, this president has declared war on our most vulnerable
citizens," Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH), the chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee's
subcommittee on nutrition,
said
last month
. That is undoubtedly correct, which makes it all the more puzzling that Democrats are
preoccupied with an impeachment scandal that overshadows Trump's attacks on the vulnerable and
encourages him to escalate wars abroad. The same goes for their stance on Syria, which saw
bipartisan
opposition
to an announced US withdrawal but next to no opposition to Trump's sudden reversal with
the explicit aim of
stealing
Syria's oil
.
It is true that polls currently show that a
majority
of Americans support impeachment
.
It is also encouraging that Democratic presidential
candidates are
sidelining
the impeachment drama
to focus on serious policy issues on the campaign trail. At the same time,
it appears that Democrats are not moving the needle in the battleground states that will decide the
next election.
A new
New
York Times
/Siena College poll
of the six closest swing states that went Republican in 2016
finds that Trump's "advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole
remains
intact or has even grown
since 2016."
With 2020 on the horizon, the dangers of the Democratic establishment's priorities cannot
be emphasized enough.
I find it hard to believe, as the author says, that a majority of
Americans support impeachment. That's because no one would know
why. It hasn't been disclosed or revealed what "crime" Trump
committed. That leaves the question: Impeach him for what exactly?
What they aren't telling you is the poll probably asks, "If Pres.
Trump was guilty of a serious felony, do you think he should be
impeached?" To which a majority would answer, "yes"
More importantly, even if that proves to be a faulty
interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a
dangerous Cold War mentality that could threaten their own
election chances in 2020.
Are you kidding me? They already ******* lost.
We gave them a serious ear, they fucked everything up, and this is
their reaction to the world finally giving them the finger. The
worse they behave, the better. If we're lucky, we'll end up with a
civil war and subsequent ******* purge, so that our future is sealed
for the next 50-100 years.
I'm 64 years old, a veteran, but I'd still go hand-to-hand with
that ******* fat insubordinate traitor Col. Vindman. What a piece
of **** he is. He should be deported back the Ukraine. As far as
I'm concerned, he forfeited his citizenship here..........and
people say we shouldn't criticize him. ********.
Cold war and the current insane lunatism do not make a perfect match.
We are residing in an era of denial of all proven experimental
science, but it would be nice too witness, what future historians
will write about this epoch of a rock bottom of the Western
civilization after 250 years of scientific progress.
"Trump's Impeachment Lures Democrats Into A Cold War Mentality"
Liberals are always in
war mode
... incessantly pushing pushing
pushing for their destructive communist agenda. Think about it...
they're NEVER satisfied. When was the last time you ever heard of a
Leftist willingly giving an inch of ground on their ideologies or
platforms? Never. Conservatives, on the other hand, have acquiesced
so much in the last 50 years, that the term which defines them no
longer has any meaning. There's nothing left to "conserve". I mean,
John F. Kennedy was FAR more "conservative" by today's standards than
ANY mainstream Republican politician. That is why the terms
"populist" or "nationalist" are better labels for those on the right
who truly want to change things.
We like war! We're a
war-like people! We like war because we're good at it! You know
why we're good at it? Cause we get a lot of practice. This
country's only 200 years old and already, we've had 10 major wars.
We average a major war every 20 years in this country so we're
good at it! And it's a good thing we are; we're not very good at
anything else anymore! Huh? Can't build a decent car, can't make a
TV set or a VCR worth a ****, got no steel industry left, can't
educate our young people, can't get health care to our old people,
but we can bomb the **** out of your country all right! Huh?
Especially if your country is full of brown people; oh we like
that don't we? That's our hobby! That's our new job in the world:
bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya, you got some
brown people in your country, tell them to watch the **** out or
we'll goddamn bomb them! Well when's the last white people you can
remember that we bombed? Can you remember the last white--- can
you remember ANY white people we've ever bombed? The Germans,
those are the only ones and that's only because they were trying
to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world!
********! THAT'S OUR ******* JOB! !
The real problem is they appear to still be largely half the
country. We keep letting more of them invade...demographics is
destiny....I'm beginning to believe it's already a foregone
conclusion.
I don't know. Seems like when they're approached properly
there's plenty of motivation to walk away. Every person who
bothered to make and upload a video probably represents
hundreds or thousands of others.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen
that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses
slowly, one by one."― Charles MacKay,
Extraordinary Popular
Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
The Democratic operative attorney representing the anti-Trump whistleblower vowed to "
get rid
of Trump
", and said that the "
#coup has started
" in 2017 tweets.
Mark Zaid, the John Podesta, Clinton and Schumer-linked attorney who founded the anti-Trump
nonprofit 'Whistleblower Aid' in 2017, tweeted "It's very scary.
We will get rid of him, and
this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.
"
As
Fox News
reports, Zaid remarked in July 2017 "
I predict @CNN will play a key role
in @realdDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.
"
The posts, which came shortly after President Trump fired then-acting Attorney General Sally
Yates for failing to defend federal laws in court, are likely to fuel Republican concerns that the
whistleblower's complaint is tainted with partisanship.
"The whistleblower's lawyer gave away the game," the Trump campaign's communications director,
Tim Murtaugh. told Fox News. "It was always the Democrats' plan to stage a coup and impeach
President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now
they've settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from
the beginning."
Trump has repeatedly accused Democrats and partisans in the intelligence community of
effectively plotting a coup against him, through selective leaks and lengthy investigations. -
Fox
News
"45 years from now we might be recalling stories regarding the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump.
I'll be old, but will be worth the wait," he tweeted in
June 2017
.
Hilariously, Zaid describes himself as a "non-partisan" attorney "handling cases involving national
security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, &
whistleblowing, according to
Breitbart
's Aaron Klein, who noted that Zaid's "Whistleblower Aid" organization is
heavily tied to far-left activist organizations and Democratic policies.
Whistleblower Aid was founded in September 2017 in the wake of Trump's presidency to encourage
government whistleblowers to come forward.
The group did not sit around waiting for whistleblowers. Upon its founding, Whistleblower Aid
actively sought to attract the attention of Trump administration government employees by
reportedly
blasting advertisements for its whistleblower services on Metro trains, using mobile
billboards that circled government offices for 10 hours a day, and handing out whistles on street
corners as a gimmick to gain attention.
When Whistleblower Aid was first formed, the main banner for the mission statement of its
website contained clearly anti-Trump language.
"Today our Republic is under threat. Whistleblower Aid is committed to protecting the rule of
law in the United States and around the world," read the previous statement which can still be
viewed
via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. -
Breitbart
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has called on Congressional Republicans to subpoena the anti-Trump
whistleblower, suggesting
he may be involved in corrupt business dealings in Ukraine
.
In a Tuesday interview, Paul said that the whistleblower - reported to be CIA officer Eric
Ciaramella - "
is a material witness to the possible corruption of Hunter Biden and Joe
Biden,
" and that Congress should
investigate the whistleblower's ties to the Biden
family and Burisma holdings
, the Ukrainian gas company that paid Hunter Biden to sit on
its board, according to
BuzzFeed
.
"
[The whistleblower] might have traveled with Joe Biden to Ukraine for all we know
.
We should look at his writings. We should know all of this stuff to see whether or not he has any
intersection with Burisma and with Hunter Biden," said Paul.
The president's most ardent supporters in Congress have long insisted
the real
corruption in Ukraine was done by former vice president Joe Biden
and his family rather
than by President Donald Trump. Many have also called for outing the anonymous intelligence
official who filed a whistleblower complaint alleging Trump demanded a political quid pro quo
from the Ukrainian government -- an investigation into the Biden family in exchange for hundreds
of millions of dollars in military aid. But, until now, they had not brought those two lines of
attack together. -
BuzzFeed
When asked if he has any evidence for his suppositions, Paul said "
We don't know unless
we ask.
"
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was surprised at Paul's comments, saying
"He needs to tell us. You can't ask a judge. You can't ask members [of Congress], '
Do you
want to subpoena this guy?
' He might be this, he might be that."
Both Graham and Paul do agree, however, that
the whistleblower's identity should be
officially made public
, with Paul telling reporters that he "probably will" disclose his
name.
"I'm more than willing to, and I probably will at some point. ... There is no law preventing
anybody from saying the name," said Paul.
Other lawmakers such as Sen. Mitt Romney, Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Lisa Murkowski say he
should remain anonymous. The whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid, said that Paul and others are using disinformation to
distract from the substance of the allegations.
"I imagine at some point soon our client will be accused of masterminding JFK's assassination as
well," he said. "Any Member of Congress who pushes to expose the whistleblower will not only
undermine the integrity of the system but will be disgracing their office and betraying the
interests of the Constitution and the American people."
Ever since the whistleblower complaint from inside the CIA first surfaced against President Donald Trump,
a steady stream of national security and State Department officials have testified about their consternation at his dealings
with Ukraine. The dominant impression that they have left, however, is that they are blurring the line between what constitutes
unsavory behavior when it comes to pressuring Ukraine for information on domestic political opponents, on the one hand,
and what are legitimate policy disagreements. Indeed, it appears that they are, more often than not, substituting their
own political judgments for the president's when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy-something that should
concern Democrats as much as Republicans. A whole caste of government officials seems to believe that for an American president
to aim to improve relations with Russia is an illegitimate, even treasonous, aspiration.
Today was no exception. Consider the testimony of State Department official Catherine Croft. In her brief opening statement,
she declared, "As the Director covering Ukraine, I staffed the President's December 2017 decision to provide Ukraine with
Javelin anti-tank missile systems. I also staffed his September 2017 meeting with then-President Petro Poroshenko on the
margins of the UN General Assembly. Throughout both, I heard-directly and indirectly-President Trump describe Ukraine as
a corrupt country." The implication was that Trump had no business complaining about corruption in Ukraine. But why not?
The persistence of corruption, which President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected by an overwhelming majority to combat, is
hardly a secret.
Perhaps even more revealing was Croft's declaration to the House Intelligence Committee that in November 2018 the White
House refused to approve the release of a statement condemning Russia for seizing three Ukrainian ships located close to
Crimea. It sounds damning at first glance. But once again, why shouldn't Trump have practiced restraint in this instance
if he was intent on improving relations with Russia, a platform that he was elected on? As it happens, the Zelensky campaign
depicted the ship incident as a political provocation on the part of the Poroshenko government.
The implicit assumptions that appear to guide these veteran members of the bureaucracy were even more obvious in the
case of Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman. As the media has underscored, he is the first person to testify in the impeachment
inquiry who participated in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Initially, Trump's defenders sought to portray him as guilty of "espionage" or dual loyalty because he emigrated to America
as a toddler. But this was always preposterous. More telling is that Vindman, no less than Croft, epitomizes a mindset that
seems to regard a deviation from the strictures of the foreign policy establishment as by definition unacceptable.
In his opening statement, Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression."
He added, "the U.S. government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise
of reforms will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy
and economic prosperity." But what if Trump has a different view of matters than the "U.S. government policy community's
view"? After all, Trump was elected in part on his explicit declarations that he would not rely on the experts who had plunged
America into Iraq and Libya.
Consider as well the attention that Vindman has lavished upon Trump's phone call with Zelensky. According to Vindman,
portions of the call he considered important were not included in the document kept by the government that was released
to the last month. This includes President Trump claiming there are recordings of former Vice President Joe Biden discussing
Ukrainian corruption, and President Zelensky specifically referring to Biden's son's company, Burisma Holdings. The document
released by the administration includes Zelensky talking about "the company" and Trump saying, "Biden went around bragging
that he stopped the prosecution," which is an interpretation of a video of Joe Biden describing how the Obama administration
made firing Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin a prerequisite for receiving foreign aid. Vindman's recollection
of the call does not change the substance of what was already understood. However, the changes in language are being portrayed
as more analogous to Richard Nixon editing the White House tapes than the routine process that produced a routine document.
"Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president and was alarmed, testified
that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript," blared the New York Times headline.
For two months, major media outlets have described the document as a "transcript," as a shorthand term. But as the document,
and TNI's previous reporting
makes clear, it is not a transcript in the strict sense of the term. "This is what's known as a memorandum of conversation:
MEMCON. It is a standard tool that is used throughout the government and the procedures can vary from agency to agency,
or who your boss is. But generally, they're all done about the same way," explains Peter Van Buren, a former Foreign Service
Officer in the State Department.
"In my own experience in government for 24 years it's a pretty standardized practice. The idea is, for all sorts of reasons,
most interactions are not recorded. Instead, they're memorialized through this process of MEMCON. Typically, while there
are many people who may be listening in or present at a meeting, someone (or sometimes two people) are designated as official
notetakers and they take down the conversation. And they're not trying necessarily to get an exact word-for-word account,
but they're certainly trying to get an idea for idea. And in many cases when you're dealing at the White House level, they
are getting it pretty much word for word," Van Buren tells TNI.
As a participant on the phone call, Vindman would have been one of the early editors. As the process continued, officials
higher than him made changes, just like the editor of a magazine would for a writer. The precise reasons for the changes
are open-ended and probably unknowable. There exists no evidence that the changes were nefarious or anything other than
mundane word choice. The document released to the public is the official U.S. government record of what happened.
John Marshall Evans, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Ambassador to Armenia, narrows down what should be the
focus of this inquiry-and what it's actually becoming. "The issue is indeed not one of policy, which the President can change,
but of the purpose that was pursued in the July 25th call: whether it was in the national interest or a private gain," he
says. So far, no one has shown that Trump demanded that the Ukrainian government produce a specific result or fabricate
evidence about the Bidens.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supposed to hold a House vote on the impeachment inquiry tomorrow, after a barrage of criticism
from Republicans for moving forward without one. Whether the open hearings and public testimony will provide any more substance
than a parade of national security bureaucrats ventilating their grievances about a president who sought to take a different
course in foreign policy is questionable.
Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.
Complete bull. The truth is that there is no Russian aggression. What we're seeing from Russia is actually pushback against
American aggression. The US is trying to turn Ukraine into a NATO member, knowing that doing so would severely undermine Russia's
national security. The American goal is to reduce Russia's influence in world affairs, and to be in geostrategic position to relate
to Russia coercively. Little wonder, then, that Russia lashed back by taking Crimean and Donbass.
For Vindman to assert that Ukraine is "bulwark against Russian aggression" and a matter vital to the US's national interests
only goes to prove that America is under the influence of liars. The American people are being mislead about the truth.
Ukraine's on Russia's front door step. It overlaps with Russia territorially, demographically, and geopolitically. By entering
Ukraine for strategic reasons, the US has provoked and threatened Russia. There is no justification for this reckless foreign
policy move by the US.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense. Every foreign
policy move this president has made has only benefited Russia, not the US! Secondly, I have slowly but surely become convinced
Trump is a wholly owned subsidiary of Putin Inc. I don't know what Putin has on Trump (but I think money laundering would be a
solid guess) or if it's the promise of Putin's blessing for a Trump Tower Moscow, but whatever it is, he has Trump in his back
pocket. And lastly, if everyone has not figured out all The Donald cares about is money in his pocket they are fools. Face it,
writer, you either have bought that bag of magic beans Trump sold the electorate in the last election or you are being willfully
blind to who and what this 'man' is.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense.
That's confusing. How exactly is America doing something for Russia at the expense of the US? If you really believe this, then
you've been fooled by American propaganda into thinking that Ukraine is an extension of the continental US. The reality, of course,
is that Ukraine is on the other side of the world, and does not in any way matter to America's vital national interests.
In Ukraine, America is overstretching its ambitions, and is behaving like an aggressor.
Let's start with the sanctions passed by Congress on Russian oligarchs for invading the Ukraine. Somehow, they just weren't
imposed until Trump was forced to. Then there is the deliberate sabotage of all of our alliances. Now it's stabbing the kurds
in the back so Putin and Erdogan can split that area up between them. The only thing Trump, Turkey and Russia have in common are
Trump Tower Istanbul and his desire for Trump Tower Moscow. He is, quite literally selling us out.
P.S. Nice try, Russkie, but it wasn't us who invaded and seized Crimea and western Ukraine. That was you. We may stick our
noses into world affairs more than we should, but we have not stolen any land or resources of any country we are in. Get right
down to it, if it wasn't for your nukes, we'd put you down like a rabid dog. Don't think we can? Your economy is the size of our
state of Georgia and it ain't even close to the top. Just another commie basket case.
According to the survey, 73% of those polled have little to no trust in how the House
impeachment inquiry has been conducted to date, while 59% say it would "make more sense" to
wait until next year's election . The same poll found just 44% of Americans think that Trump
should be impeached and removed from office .
"Even many who would like to impeach Trump seem to feel that beating him at the polls in
2020 is actually a better strategy for ousting him from office," said Patrick Murray, director
of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.
What's more, 71% of respondents think it's unlikely the Senate would vote to remove Trump -
which, as Nancy Pelosi warned, would simply empower Republicans after Democrats can't tank
Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate whether former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter engaged
in a quid-pro-quo to personally enrich themselves.
That said, just over half of Americans think its a good idea for the House to conduct the
inquiries, even if many of those people have 'little to no trust' in it!
Those who approve of the job Trump is doing rose to 42% from 41% in September, while 51%
disapprove, down from 53% in September.
Of those who approve, 62% can't think of anything he could do that would cause them to stop
supporting him .
Methodology: The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth
University Polling Institute from Oct. 30 to Nov. 3 with a national random sample of 908 adults
age 18 and older. The margin of error for the total sample is ± 3.3.
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached
and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?
According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer
of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama
refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.
Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not
Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine
altogether?
The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed
word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to
announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we
had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.
Again, where is the body of the crime?
Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.
Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.
Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.
Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.
Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?
Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a
$50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden
was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.
By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's
regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose
dismissal all of Europe was demanding?
Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to
investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the
Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.
Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed
with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to
know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.
Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in
the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.
Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?
Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees
that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?
A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting
that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.
But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian
Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national
security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of
independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal
nationalism"?
And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid
goes to Ukraine?
The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?
Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir
Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and
Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.
Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms
escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.
The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that
argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent
even more weapons.
But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC,
not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what
U.S. foreign policy should be.
The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.
This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.
And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by
the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic
verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.
The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. T
As Bette Davis said in All About Eve , "Fasten your seatbelts -- it's going to be a bumpy night."
The ride started last night with Rep. Devin Nunes' appearance on Hannity , escalated with arrests of figures tied to Rudy
Giuliani, and will possibly come to a complete halt when former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch meets with three House committees
tomorrow -- assuming the State Department allows the testimony to take place at all.
Kicking this off, Kicking this off, Kicking this off,
Nunes went on Hannity last night to claim that Yavonovitch may have been spying on Americans -- including journalists.
Sean Hannity expresses his anger over what his own sources are telling him about surveillance of John Solomon among others, although
Nunes more cautiously advises patience:
"What I can tell you is that we know what Pete Sessions, congressman from Texas now retired, we know what he had to say. We
know that there are people within that were not only Ukrainians but also Americans that worked at the State Department who have
raised concerns about this ambassador, that's why she was ultimately removed," Nunes said.
"We also have concerns that possibly they were monitoring press from different journalists and others," he continued. "That
we don't know, but, you know, we have people who have given us this information and we're going to ask these questions to the
State Department and hopefully they'll get the answers before she comes in on Friday."
Hannity then said three sources have told him there "is evidence that shows government resources were used to monitor communications"
of a journalist, The Hill's John Solomon.
"Well, what I have heard, and I want to be clear. I think there is a difference. What I've heard is that there were strange
requests, irregular requests to monitor, not just one journalist, but multiple journalists," Nunes said. "Now perhaps that was
okay. Perhaps there was some reason for that, that it can be explained away. But that's what we know and that's what we are going
to be looking into."
Keep Pete Sessions in mind as our ride progresses to its next sharp turn. Earlier today, two of Rudy Giuliani's clients -- and
donors to a PAC funding Giuliani's investigation of the Bidens --
got arrested for criminal campaign finance violations . Among the allegations are that those violations intended to mask foreign
influence on US elections:
Two Soviet-born donors to a pro-Trump fundraising committee who helped Rudy Giuliani's efforts to investigate Democrat Joe
Biden were arrested late Wednesday on criminal charges of violating campaign finance rules, including funneling Russian money
into President Trump's campaign.
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Florida businessmen, have been under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan,
and are expected to appear in federal court in Virginia later on Thursday, the people said. Both men were born in former Soviet
republics.
Mr. Giuliani, President Trump's private lawyer, identified the two men in May as his clients. Both men have donated to Republican
campaigns including Mr. Trump's, and in May 2018 gave $325,000 to the primary pro-Trump super PAC, America First Action, through
an LLC called Global Energy Producers, according to Federal Election Commission records.
The men were charged with four counts, including conspiracy, falsification of records and lying to the FEC about their political
donations,
according
to the indictment that outlines a conspiracy to funnel a Russian donor's money into U.S. elections.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the two have been instrumental in helping Giuliani make contacts in Ukraine. One of them
happened to be part of a meeting Giuliani had with the now-unemployed envoy Kurt Volker:
Since late 2018, Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas have introduced Mr. Giuliani to several current and former senior Ukrainian prosecutors
to discuss the Biden case.
Mr. Parnas in July accompanied Mr. Giuliani to a breakfast meeting with Kurt Volker, then the U.S. special representative for
Ukraine negotiations. "We had a long conversation about Ukraine," Mr. Volker wrote in his testimony to House committees last week.
During that breakfast, Mr. Giuliani mentioned the investigations he was pursuing into Mr. Biden and 2016 election interference.
The
indictment
released today has a very telling reference to a former US congressman who involved himself in the effort to oust Yovanovitch:
And now let's go back to the WSJ for some dot-connecting:
In May 2018, Pete Sessions, at the time a GOP congressman from Texas, sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking
for her removal, saying he had been told Ms. Yovanovitch was displaying a bias against the president in private conversations.
The indictment references a congressman, identifiable as Mr. Sessions, whose assistance Mr. Parnas sought in "causing the U.S.
government to remove or recall the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine." The indictment says those efforts were conducted "at least
in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials." Mr. Sessions didn't respond to a request for comment.
Hoo boy . If nothing else, this certainly looks bad, which makes Nunes' citation of Session suspect on its face.
The Department of Justice is essentially accusing Sessions of being bought by foreign influence in going after Yovanovitch, and clearly
intends to press that case against Giuliani's associates on that basis.
Bear in mind that this is William Barr's DoJ, too. Barr got read into the case soon after taking over the Attorney General
job in February, and apparently found it convincing enough to proceed to indictment. The arrest also made it very convenient for
House Democrats to
issue subpoenas for testimony from the pair , although it likely complicates how cooperative they're willing to be. At the very
least, they'll be easy to find.
Giuliani responded by attacking the DoJ for its "extremely suspect" timing in unsealing the indictment and arresting his associates.
He promised Fox News' Catherine Herridge that he would shortly reveal how all of this is connected to his investigation into the
Bidens:
What about the "extremely suspect" timing? It turns out that the pair were
trying to leave
the country , which forced the DoJ to make the arrests now:
The two Giuliani-linked defendants, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were detained at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington
on Wednesday and are scheduled to appear in court in Virginia at 2 p.m. ET Thursday.
Meanwhile, Yovanovitch continues to prepare for her own testimony, which is still
scheduled to take place tomorrow . The Washington Post reported late last night that she's "on board" for cooperating with the
committees, and perhaps now even more so after Nunes' allegations on Hannity last night. The State Department could still
bar her from discussing her work with Congress (she remains employed by State), but
ABC reports today that Mike Pompeo is already facing a rising level of discontent over Yovanovitch's treatment and Pompeo's lack
of a public defense for her:
Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled early from her post this spring, is scheduled for a deposition Friday with three committees
in the House of Representatives, but it is unclear whether she will be allowed to show up after the U.S. ambassador to the European
Union was blocked by the Trump administration from testifying on Tuesday.
Either way, the manner in which Yovanovitch has been treated by Trump and the silence from Pompeo has already rankled many
rank and file at the State Department, according to half a dozen current and former officials, who are also upset by the administration's
use of career diplomats in the president's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.
So where does this ride come to a stop? How much of this is true -- all of it, none of it, or only some of it? Trump loyalists
will surely consider all of this as more evidence of a Deep State plot that now involves both the State and Justice Departments.
Trump haters will see this as another case of foreign influence on the administration and a plot to smear Trump's opponents, both
electoral and otherwise. The rest of America might just be hoping that the [expletive deleted] ride would come to an end, period
.
At this point, the mess is too complicated to suss out which conclusion reflects the truth. What does appear to true is
that we're not going to know for sure what's true for a long, long time -- and it might turn out, ironically, that the DoJ
could end up as the most credible player in Ukraine-Gate.
Right-wing media tries to smear former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
Despite grave Judicial Watch allegations about a "surveillance" campaign from right-wing figures,
the facts so far point to mere tracking of a pro-Trump disinformation campaign
UPDATE (10/24/19)
: It
turns out
that the list Marie Yovanovitch allegedly used to "spy" on conservatives was really a basic Facebook
search on CrowdTangle, a
mundane and widely-used
social media
tool that
tracks
public
social media activity.
Judicial Watch
described CrowdTangle as a "Soros-linked media tracking tool."
Representatives of right-wing group Judicial Watch have been claiming during appearances on
conservative media shows that former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "spying" on media figures
close to President Donald Trump by monitoring public statements they made on social media regarding
Ukraine.
Judicial Watch is alleging that Yovanovitch -- who recently
testified to House impeachment investigators
that Trump pressured the State Department to remove her
over baseless allegations -- was "basically running a war room" by monitoring public statements regarding
Ukraine
made by
figures in right-wing media like Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, Trump personal lawyer Rudy
Giuliani, and Donald Trump, Jr. The list also includes former Obama ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.
Judicial Watch also claims that the searches were looking for the following keywords: "Biden,"
"Giuliani," "Soros," and "Yovanovitch."
That Yovanovich would monitor public statements made by public figures is unsurprising given her
recent testimony
claiming that Giuliani had been criticizing her in the months before her ousting,
and the people she allegedly monitored are connected to the smear campaign Giuliani was waging. He had
accused her of privately criticizing the president and trying to protect the interests of Biden and his
son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The smear included accusations that
Soros was funding a conspiracy to hurt Trump's presidency and elect Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Yovanovich said she was "incredulous" about her removal and that it was based on "unfounded and false
claims by people with clearly questionable motives" -- claims that have been
promoted publicly
by conservative media figures.
The Washington Post
reported that George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state responsible
for Ukraine, became concerned around October 2018 that Yovanovitch was the target of a "classic
disinformation operation."
NBC News
indicated that the State Department was concerned over the effort to oust Yovanovich,
reporting that the agency "attempted to ring alarm bells" regarding Giuliani's efforts to smear her:
The documents also show that Giuliani, through conservative writer John Solomon's columns in The Hill,
attempted to tie former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to the liberal donor George Soros as part
of a massive conspiracy to take down Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and help Hillary
Clinton win the 2016 election.
...
When State Department officials saw the disinformation campaign, they attempted to ring alarm bells
and strategized to correct the record, the documents show.
Yovanovitch, who has over 30 years of experience in foreign diplomacy, further testified that, as
The Washington Post
put it, "under Trump's leadership, U.S. foreign policy has been compromised by
self-interested actors who have badly demoralized and depleted America's diplomatic corps." The testimony
of
White House aide Fiona Hill
confirmed Yovanovitch's depiction of foreign policy under the Trump
administration.
Still, Judicial Watch is attempting to push the narrative that Yovanovitch nefariously
spied on Trump allies among right-wing media, appearing on the radio shows of Sebastian Gorka and Sean
Hannity and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs' prime-time show to spread the message. Some Fox News figures
responded with paranoia regarding their own conversations.
Judicial Watch
also shared
its report on Twitter, announcing that it is "investigating if prominent conservative figures/journalists
& persons [with ties] to @realDonaldTrump were unlawfully monitored by the State Dept in Ukraine at the
request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an Obama appointee."
Fox & Friends
hosted Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton, who repeated that his "sourcing tells us that she was asking that folks like Rudy
Giuliani, Don Trump Jr., a whole list of your colleagues there at Fox, be monitored on certain phrases."
Co-host Steve Doocy invited Fitton to "go ahead and speculate for a second" about Yovanovitch's motives,
to which Fitton replied, "It looks an awful lot like an enemy's list to me." Doocy noted that Yovanovitch
is "keeping an eye on television, of all things," and he called it "particularly disturbing that, you
know, somebody in the federal government would be tracking people on TV."
FOX News contributor John Solomon revealed fired Ukrainian Ambassador Maria Yovanovich's
links to a radical Soros group. Yovanovich appeared before Congress on Friday, claiming that
she was unjustly fired just because she badmouthed the president, prevented Ukrainian officials
from coming to the US to expose Democrat corruption, and giving Ukrainian prosecutor a do not
prosecute list. Now, investigative reporter John Solomon reports on her link to a
Soros-supported group. Lutsenko told Solomon that in April 2016, Ukrainian prosecutors were
investigating an alleged anti-corruption group, AntAC, over $4.4 million that was illegally
diverted. AntAc was founded by the Obama administration and George Soros.
Trump's Little Surprise Is Making Liberals Cry! Got Yours Yet? Liberty Journalists x Ads by Revcontent Find Out More >
21,994
On Friday fired Ambassador Yovanovich testified behind closed doors in front of the
Pelosi-Schiff impeachment committee.
Yovanovich believes she was unjustly fired despite the fact that she was an Obama holdover,
was speaking out against President Trump and she was
colluding with the DNC and Hillary Campaign to undermine the US presidential election.
On Friday John Solomon told Lou Dobbs about the fired ambassador's links to a radical Soros
group operating in Ukraine.
On March 20th Solomon
published his interview with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko alleging
Yovanovitch gave him a "do not prosecute list," back in 2016.
It will be clear once the transcripts are released, that the crew
testifying for Adam Schiff are upset about the President fulfilling his
Constitutional responsibility to run foreign policy rather than letting
them run it, about his determination to get to the bottom of Ukraine's role
in intervening in the 2016 U.S. Election, and the ongoing coup against him,
which implicates many of these very same "witnesses." The President,
knowing that Ukraine tried to take him out by intervening in the 2016
election, refused to meet with the Poroshenko government. That government
jockeyed for favor by revealing its role in the 2016 illegalities and
documenting the Biden story for Rudy Guilani and others.
When new
President Zelensky was elected, President Trump used an alternate channel
to assess him, rather than the State Department and National Security
Council operatives who were either involved in the coup against him or
refused to stand against it. That appears to have included Ukraine envoy
Kurt Volker, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
There is nothing unusual in this but it drove the unelected Mandarins,
including John Bolton, crazy, along with the considerable military
industrial complex grouping in the Congress who want permanent war with
Russia.
Here are the key players so far based on the applause provided by
Democrats and the Main Stream Media:
William B. Taylor, Jr.
Presented hearsay testimony, based on conversations with NSC John Bolton
protégé Tim Morrison, and others that somehow the President presented a
quid pro quo in his July 25th phone call with Zelensky, despite the fact
that the actual transcript of the call and repeated statements by President
Zelensky evidence no quid pro quo. Taylor's career has featured every U.S.
imperial disaster possible:
– "Economic development" coordinator for Eastern Europe, former Soviet
Union, resulting in the economic decimation of those countries and their
looting
– Coordinator for U.S. assistance of Afghanistan. Said the U.S. had the
right to stay forever until the country was secured to U.S. specifications
– Coordinator for Iraq Reconstruction. Program lost billions and left
the country destitute and mired in religious warfare.
– Ambassador to Ukraine in 2006-2009 right after the Orange Revolution,
the nation's first color revolution delivered by the British and the State
Department.
– Under Obama, Special Coordinator for Mideast "transitions" in the wake
of the Arab Spring, the program which set all of Southwest Asia on fire and
birthed the present round of Isis terrorism.
– Serves on the U.S./Ukraine Business Council with David J. Kramer as a
senior advisor. Kramer leaked the dirty Christopher Steele dossier against
Donald Trump to Buzzfeed. The Council coordinates the "investment" of
various vulture and "turnaround" funds in Ukraine. According to Breitbart's
Aaron Klein, Taylor met with a member of Adam Schiff's staff, Thomas Eager,
in Ukraine, prior to his testimony.
Marie Yovanovitch
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from August 18, 2016, until she was recalled,
in May of 2019. She claimed she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump
attorney, Rudy Giuliani and Ukrainians who opposed her. But, she was at the
helm of the Embassy at the point when the Manafort black ledger smear
campaign was at full roar.
Way back in March, 2019, U.S. Embassy employees at the Ukrainian Embassy
were leaking that the Ambassador was telling Embassy employees and
Ukrainians not to pay any attention to President Donald Trump because he
was going to be impeached.
This was before a wave of articles featuring Ukraine's former prosecutor
Yuriy Lutsenko claiming that Yovanovitch had provided him with a list of
"do not prosecute" names, including those Ukrainians most involved in the
Ukrainian efforts to target and smear former Trump Campaign Advisor Paul
Manafort as a Russian agent.
Judicial Watch has just filed a FOIA request based on State Department
sources who claim that during her tenure in Ukraine, Yovanovitch ordered
the monitoring of various journalists who published negative stories about
her or who generally support President Trump.
Her resume evidences a trail of destruction. Dubbed the "Iron Lady" by
colleagues, she replaced the infamous Ambassador Geoffey Pyatt in Ukraine.
In 2002, after serving as one of the key State Department anti-Russian
diplomats, Yovanovitch played a central role in the Ukraine regime change
operation known as the "Orange Revolution." She promoted the scandal of
Ukraine selling 4 Kolchuga radar systems to Iraq in violation of the United
Nations sanctions. This led to the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma being replaced by Washington and London's choice, Viktor
Yushschenko..
She was Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic at the time the British-U.S.
Tulip Color Revolution occurred in that country, led by the State
Department and the British.
In 2008-2011 Yovanovitch was U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, where she was
heavily involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in neighboring Azerbaijan
(a separatist operation as part of a regime-change operation).
Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman
A Ukrainian born Army veteran, Vindman joined the NSC in July of 2018,
under John Bolton, as the NSC's "Ukraine expert." He claimed that all of
his corrections to the transcript of the Zelensky/Trump call were not
accepted although he admitted that his corrections were minor and did not
change the call substantively. He testified that he discussed with
Ukrainian colleagues how to "handle Trump."
The key to who he is and why he is testifying is contained in his
opening statement:
"When I joined the NSC in the Spring of 2019, I became aware of
outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent
with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful for
U.S. government policy."
There you have it, the "interagency" dictates U.S. foreign policy, not
the President as specified in Article II of the Constitution. Vindman also
says he authored the Russia strategy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for
managing "competition" with Russia, an undoubtedly very bellicose document.
Amidst the media fanfare claiming that Vindman represents "the ultimate
immigrant hero" story, the Republicans finally leaked something substantive
about what happened behind closed doors. Asked to cite in the transcript of
the call where the President offered a quid pro quo, Vindman apparently
testified that the entire call evidenced this, since the President was in a
"position of power" over President Zelensky. If true, foreign policy is now
being managed on the same terms as the Me Too movement.
"... NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis " while the NY Times continues to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with: ..."
"... There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. ..."
"... Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release. ..."
"... As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media. ..."
"... As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision (real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it. ..."
"... Adds realist Dr.Assad: "I said before whatever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say it to an enemy or a friend, the result is the same – it is unreliable. That is why we do not waste our time on things like this. " ..."
"... I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything. ..."
"... Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office of the President. ..."
"... The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps. ..."
"... Interesting updates, Joerg: however, it was obvious from the beginning that the interference in the US 2016 elections were Deep State gamers, from GCHQ-Ukro-Italian secret services, which was why they manufactured the Skripal Affair as Russians, Warning & Distraction, to cover their own backsides in the media: the same Skripal that worked on the Bum Steele Dossier, writing complete & utter fiction about Trump, that Comey then used as basis for his attempt with McCabe to enact Treason U$A, on wholly false trumped up charges, which were then transposed to the Russiagate-Hoax, Mueller &&& (yawn), . Still, it's good that Sid Powell has confirmed that they have Mifsud's phone . . . Get Mifsud, Now !? Strange how such USUK Agents become untraceable, when we simple folk would be harangued to hell, even with the odd ex-judicial killing, if we prove inconvenient to their narrative. ..."
"... "American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors. ..."
"... Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States." ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal
or factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their
partisan spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send
ripples through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence
inquiry into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and
currently remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
vexarb
From a realist who deals with the real world, Syrian President Dr.Assad on why Trump is the best POTU$A:
"As for Trump, you might ask me a question and I give you an answer that might sound strange. I say that he is the best American
President, not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president. All American presidents perpetrate
all kinds of political atrocities and all crimes and yet still win the Nobel Prize and project themselves as defenders of human
rights and noble and unique American values, or Western values in general. The reality is that they are a group of criminals who
represent the interests of American lobbies, i.e. the large oil and arms companies, and others. Trump talks transparently, saying
that what we want is oil. We want money. This is the reality of American policy. What more do we need than a transparent opponent?"
vexarb
Adds realist Dr.Assad: "I said before whatever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say it to an enemy or a friend,
the result is the same – it is unreliable. That is why we do not waste our time on things like this. "
[Note: by "the Americans" Dr.Assad means the United $tates. A figure of speech, taking the whole to denote the part.]
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Interesting updates, Joerg: however, it was obvious from the beginning that the interference in the US 2016 elections were Deep
State gamers, from GCHQ-Ukro-Italian secret services, which was why they manufactured the Skripal Affair as Russians, Warning
& Distraction, to cover their own backsides in the media: the same Skripal that worked on the Bum Steele Dossier, writing complete
& utter fiction about Trump, that Comey then used as basis for his attempt with McCabe to enact Treason U$A, on wholly false trumped
up charges, which were then transposed to the Russiagate-Hoax, Mueller &&& (yawn), . Still, it's good that Sid Powell has confirmed
that they have Mifsud's phone . . . Get Mifsud, Now !? Strange how such USUK Agents become untraceable, when we simple folk would
be harangued to hell, even with the odd ex-judicial killing, if we prove inconvenient to their narrative.
More importantly for me was the "Putin sends a clear Message to Macron and the EU" TDC, (Top dead centre) in your link: it
was a (month old) pretty good longterm objective analysis of how the alliance between Russia & China was designed to be and has
become truly rock-solid, moving forwards: and it's well discussed & documented what a moron ManuMacroni has been on the world
stage >>> great translation of Putin's statement of intent and clear talk to Macron, who is exposed for the meaningless Deep State
puppet he is >>> even, Putin had no need to mention the Gilets Jaunes, representing a degree of vision, trust & commitment far
beyond that of the failing FUKUS empires: a vision that FUKUS cannot even financially entertain, in their present economic state
of financial & moral depravity & bankruptcy.
Austerity my ass, let's keep raising national debt and keep funding bum wars & terrorism, for the MIC & National Security State,
until society burns. How utterly shameful
It should be now very clear to all that the Russian-Chinese alliance is far more than just military, in every sense: together,
the world's largest economy will plough on regardless of what Macron or any other arrogant manipulative untrustworthy Westerner
has to say! And frankly, after NATZO's broken promises in Eastern Europe, (which I have personally observed here in Bulgaria since
2004, fully expected & awaited, I might add) and the events in the Ukraine and the self-destructive EU sanctions based on media
lies & manipulations & omissions, I really do believe Putin has handled this all extremely wisely & astutely playing the long
game, like the Chinese & avoiding incredible provocation, media wise. One day, however long it takes, the average ignorant Westerner
will come to understand that they have been deceived & lied to, from the beginning, especially by their secret services; & have
been lapdogs in the arms of US Deep State Corporate Fascist NATZO CIA & GCHQ morons, in "The History of the National Security
State" and, that Julian Assange needs to be set FREE asap : and given the Seth Rich murder, which kinda' benefited Trump and his
Fake News declarations, my guess is that Trump will not want Assange charged, in the end: but, we'll see ! ? Because first the
British have to sort out the arrogant bastards in GCHQ, also in the Media and their own new 'attorney general' who will investigate
secret services role in Deep State Corporate Deeds & prosecute people like Judge Arbuthnot, for not recusing herself >>> BoJo's
job, actually, but who cares ? >>> drain UK Swampland. ? Myopic Corbyn seems to have missed the bus & significance on the Affair
Assange, completely, which is somewhat inexplicable, given the Guardian Moderators infiltration by the British Military 77th Brigade,
and their bias against Corbyn. At least, that appears to be Trump's agenda and the longer Assange remains 'Censored', the worse
that societies throughout Europe will become, until we all address Communications & Media Law, with wholly wise, tech. savvy intelligent
and independent JUDGES, not compromised by the HillBilly Clinton/Epstein Clan of NATZO CIA/GCHQ operatives. (maybe I'm not clarifying
in the best way, but hopefully you get the drift?). Only a week or so ago, the Bulgarian President was complaining about appalling
standards of journalism, too, with an obvious agenda from abroad, also in terms of ownership. (Not widely reported!) And, I'm
sure you are aware of the incredible bias & censorship in the German MSM, just like Professor Dan Ganser & myself. 😉 R.i.P Udo
Ulfkotte >>> when Secret Services dictate the News, not much point in listening to a word they have to say >>> HANG 'EM HIGH
! out to dry, in Public Eye ! They are FASCISTS ! The worst kind !
I don't say this lightly . . . after over 40 years studying their collective behaviours, in relation to the reality on the ground.
Joerg
@Tim Jenkins
Yes, You are right.
But let's look at the bigger picture.
23 Trillions(!) of $$ are missing in the Pentagon.
To that see the great James Corbett's video "Fitt's Trillions" –
https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=fitts-trillions
.
So 23 trillion $ are missing – and the congress decided not to follow that up.
Before that on 911 already 3 trillion $ (if I remember this right) were missing in the Pentagon. And surprise, surprise: On 911
the Pentagon building exploded exactly there where those accountants were placed, who tried to find out where all that money (3
trillion $) went. All accountants died. After that no one started again to find out where the money went.
Where did the stolen gold from under the Twin Towers go to? Mueller (than state attorney of NY) obviously did want to research
that.
The US is already ruled by a mighty super-syndicate – or possibly by two or three of them. So mighty they could put the classical
Mafia directly into kindergarten.
And with that much money stolen they can buy in the USA but also in Europe (and, yes, Germany) all politicians, judges and journalists.
And those who don't comply, get fired by their (also bought) boss. Or they get murdered ("suicide"), or their career gets destroyed.
There are no classical politics anymore like, let's say, 50 years ago. Here in the west it is only the super-syndicates' power
that rules.
By the way: In the end-time of the Roman Empire there were also no more free judges. They had to follow the orders of the local
criminal gang – or they got killed. And I also believe that the fall of this impressive "Indus Valley Civilisation" (2000 B.C.)
was caused by overwhelming and destructive power of Mafia/Syndicates. In the end the citizens of the Indus Valley civilisation
simply fled the area – obviously to south India. So the Tamils may very well be the descendants of the old Indus people.
With you all the way, Joerg: ironic you should mention the Tamils. I spent time alone in Jaffna, in the aftermath of genocide.
I'd better not start here & now on Sin-dication and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Suffice to say, if one wishes to speculate
on the weather & commodities, with insider knowledge of what the D.o.D. did/do with electronics like HAARP, one would not be a
particularly intelligent or moral person, scientifically speaking. And said person, would never wish to discuss the contents of
WTC 7 and that Pentagon Wing. 😉
Ta, for the linkS :). Look forward to hearing more from you.
Viele Grüsse,
Tim
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy up
& keep her out of the public eye, forever 🙂
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if,
you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child 😉
Talk about obnoxious and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
I'm almost seriously thinking of buying a one way ticket to the Marquesas Islands Right in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, nowhere
near anywhere; such is the mad bad state of the World.
Need to start up a Go Fund Me page tho!
As I almost (94.6% of the time) boycott the presstitute filth masquerading as journalists (cough) so, I 99% of the time boycott
anything coming out of Hollywood, including alleged 'comedians'.
How are things in Bulgaria? What are the Fascist Stormtroopers up to, aka NATZO who all those you named have intimate connections
with.
Listening to a gorgeous Russian band called: iamthemorning. Check them out – food for the soul. Enjoy your arvo..
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less than
$50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it may seem
in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.
In the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together.
Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
Antonym
Pretty humble for an opinion 😀
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when
a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.)
They are a law unto themselves and completely free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK.
"We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains.
They also murder people, at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein.
They plant bombs and blow people up.
Many of the "terrorist atrocities" from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies
with Gladio on the continent and the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage
a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead.
The more recent Skripal Hoax.
The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets.
They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear
his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele.
This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other cheek.
We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people are
poor servants and terrible masters.
We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question – who runs this country, you or
the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even
suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests.
He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep any of his promises.
Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible, fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies, and
they were home and dry.
Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging down every rabbit hole
they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years.
And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree 🙂
and you never even mentioned HQ.Intel.inside.Israel, today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries'
with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on
everything-everything & any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors,
like Promis & Prism, liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet) 🙂
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would
sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction.
What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule & intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive
note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
mark
I think I'd prefer the female rhinoceros in Moscow Zoo, even if Putin has been blackmailing me with the photos ever since.
Tim Jenkins
Well, (ahem), you certainly got me all thorny & horny, more than AmyS. ever could, in her wildest dreams, or Chucks, (shucks)
🙂 talk about suckers . . . now, do tell, what was the female Rhino's name ? ! 🙂
Who cares about some BlackRhinoMail, today ?
They'll be dead and extinct, in no time with a legacy 😉
for passionate lovers of Black holes & eternal energy 🙂
Antonym
Is that the best money can buy these days in the US? I guess most of the 1% reside in the Caribbean these days, while Washington
D.C. is stuffed with semi-stiffs.
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses
are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
Dungroanin,
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of the
security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages.
Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
The dispute was not over whether the United States should continue to pursue empire but
rather how to continue to achieve it. The debates were occasioned by the rise of the
countries of the Global South, the societally wrenching experience of the Vietnam War, the
growth of power and influence of the former Soviet Union, and since its collapse, the
emergence of China as a new global economic, political and military power. In addition, the
new international economy was becoming more global, that is to say more interconnected.
Debates about strategy, tactics, surfaced between the neoliberal globalists who emphasized
so-called free trade, financial speculation, and the promotion of a neoliberal agenda that
advocated for the privatization of all public activities by states and the development of
austerity policies that would shift wealth from the many to the few. The international debt
system would be the vehicle for pressuring poor and rich countries to transform their own
economic agendas. This faction dominated United States foreign policy making for
generations, particularly from Reagan to Clinton to Obama. In political/military terms,
they have sought to push back challengers to neoliberal capitalism: Russia, China, populist
Latin American countries, and they have advocated advancing US economic interests in Asia
and Africa. Many of the institutions of the neoliberal globalists, sometimes called the
"deep state" include the CIA, NSA, and other security agencies.
On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist
capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a
permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020
federal budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and
anti-immigrant policies.
Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed from
the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about
NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of
Europe, not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our
"endless, ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and
saying "The job of our military is not to police the world."
I would add that Trump is also an "American exceptionalist" but ascribes a very
different provincial meaning to the term, something closer to a crabbed provincialism, an
insular "Shining City on a Hill," surrounded by a moat.
The constitutional power to impeach a
duly elected president was intended by the Framers of the Constitution as a neutral, non-partisan
tool of last resort to be used against only criminal incumbents in extreme cases.
It is
now being deployed as a partisan weapon that can be used routinely against presidents of a
different party from those who control the House of Representatives.
Under the views of some members of Congress, any time the House is controlled by one party, a
simple majority can properly vote to impeach. As Congresswoman
Maxine
Waters put it
:
"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law."
She is wrong.
The Constitution is the law and she is not above it.
The recent partisan misuse of this emergency power began with the impeachment of former
President William Jefferson Clinton by the Republican-controlled House in 1998.
Clinton did
not commit an impeachable offense, even if he feloniously lied under oath about his sex life. Such
perjury, if it occurred, would satisfy the definition of a "crime," but not meet the required
Constitutional criteria of a "high crime and misdemeanor."
If President Clinton committed
a crime, it would be a low crime related to his sex life and comparable to the low felonies --
adultery and paying off an extortionist -- committed by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of
the Treasury. Had Hamilton payed the extortionist from Treasury funds, as he was falsely accused of
doing, he would have been guilty of an impeachable high crime.
To be impeached, a president must commit a crime (misdemeanor is a species of crime) and
the commission of that crime must also constitute an abuse of office. An abuse of office without an
underlying crime is a political sin, but not an impeachable offense.
This very issue was debated at the Constitutional Convention, where one delegate proposed
"maladministration" as the criteria for impeachment and removal of a president. James Madison, the
Father of our Constitution, strongly objected on the ground that so vague and open-ended a
criterion would have the president serve at the will of Congress and turn us from a Republic with a
strong president into a parliamentary democracy in which the chief executive can be removed by a
simple vote of no confidence. Instead, the Convention adopted strict prerequisites for impeachment:
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House is no more empowered to
substitute its own criteria for those enumerated in the Constitution than the Senate would be to
change the 2/3 vote requirement for removal to a simple majority or a 3/5 super majority. Congress
is not above the law. It is bound by what the Framers accepted and cannot now apply the criterion
the framers explicitly rejected.
Those who characterize the impeachment and removal process as completely political are
wrong as a matter of constitutional law, even if they are right in describing the reality of how it
is being currently misused. Advocates of this view misquote Hamilton in Federalist #65.
Hamilton did characterize the criteria for impeachment as "political," but only in the sense
that they relate to "injuries done immediately to the society itself." He then immediately rejected
the view that the process should be partisan, based on "the comparative strength of parties,"
rather than on "the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." He called that the "greatest
danger" and demanded "neutrality toward those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny." Those
who misquote and misunderstand Hamilton wrongly conflate the words "political," by which he meant
governmental, and "partisan, " by which he meant related to the comparative strength of parties and
factions.
It is difficult to imagine a greater breach of Hamilton's principles than the recent
House vote along party lines (with two exceptions, both opposing impeachment) to open a formal
impeachment investigation against President Trump. The vote was determined exclusively by the
"comparative strength of parties," as was the vote to impeach President Bill Clinton two decades
ago.
A partisan House vote to impeach President Trump, followed by a partisan Senate vote to acquit
him, would not only hurt the Democratic Party -- as the votes in the Clinton case hurt the
Republican Party -- it would damage our constitution and further polarize our already divided
nation.
Most important, misusing the impeachment power in a partisan manner would pose, in the
words of Hamilton, "the greatest danger" to our Constitution.
Attorneys Admit 'Whistleblower' Had Contacts With Other Presidential Candidates
by
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/04/2019 - 11:40
0
SHARES
President Trump has continued to his attacks on the Democrats' "impeachment resolution"
proceedings, and in particular the so-called 'whistleblower' and the irrelevance of his (or her)
thoughts and feelings...
" What I said on the phone call with the Ukrainian President is "perfectly" stated.
There is no reason to call witnesses to analyze my words and meaning.
This is just
another Democrat Hoax that I have had to live with from the day I got elected (and before!).
Disgraceful!"
"
The Whistleblower gave false information & dealt with corrupt politician Schiff. He
must be brought forward to testify.
Written answers not acceptable! Where is the 2nd
Whistleblower? He disappeared after I released the transcript. Does he even exist? Where is the
informant? Con!"
And, interestingly, this follows a statement from the attorneys representing the whistleblower
acknoweledging that their client "has come into contact with presidential candidates from both
parties."
In light of the ongoing efforts to mischaracterize whistleblower #1's alleged "bias" in order
to detract from the substance of the complaint, we will attempt to clarify some facts.
First
, our client has never worked for or advised a political candidate,
campaign, or party.
Second
, our client has spent their entire government career in apolitical,
civil servant positions in the Executive Branch.
Third
, in these positions our client has come into contact with presidential
candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials – not as candidates.
Fourth
, the whistleblower voluntarily provided relevant career information
to the ICIG in order to facilitate an assessment of the credibility of the complaint.
Fifth
, as a result, the ICIG concluded – as is well known – that the
complaint was both urgent and credible.
Finally
, the whistleblower is not the story.
To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that
reason the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.
* * *
Except the motivations of the whistleblower are relevant, as Dan Bongino noted on Fox this
morning:
"
There is no Whistleblower. There is someone with an agenda against Donald Trump.
What he was blowing the whistle on didn't happen.
We have the transcript of the call.
This is all a farce and no Republican should forget that."
A parade of Washington's unelected diplomatic elite has been appearing before the House
Intelligence Committee in a tiny room in the House basement, a SCIF (sensitive compartmented
information facility), walled off from the world by a blanket of electronic security to enforce
absolute, total secrecy. There, in a proceeding reminding most of the British Star Chamber,
they are making claims against a man they hate, a man whom the voters elected in 2016 to throw
them all out of any power whatsoever over the nation -- the President of the United
States. Here is how America voted.
Here is a map of US counties, colored red and blue to indicate Republican and Democratic
majorities respectively. Source: personal.umich.edu
They are claiming that President Trump withheld necessary military aid for Ukraine in
exchange for a promise by the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his cocaine-addled son,
Hunter. This is the so-called "impeachment inquiry" which follows two previous impeachment
campaigns in sequence, launched by the Democrats and the Anglo-American defense and
intelligence establishment on the day Donald Trump won the election.
In this brief we will show you that Donald Trump should have withheld military aid from the
Ukrainians, but for a reason different than that stated. And, we will demonstrate that Joe
Biden should be investigated, for supervising a coup, led by neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which has
collapsed that country. Thousands have been killed or fled the country. Many of the foreign
policy mandarins now testifying against Trump were Biden's managers of that horrific crime, and
other similar crimes, which have created America's "forever" wars.
Joe Biden otherwise
played a key role as Obama's Vice President in the 2016-2017 illegalities against candidate
and President-elect Donald Trump, actively joining a small group of "principals" (John Brennan,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, James Clapper, Jim Comey) discussing and implementing the
intelligence feed for a propaganda campaign intended to defeat Trump by smearing him as a
Russian agent. These conversations included Susan Rice, Avril Haines, and Lisa Monaco from the
White House side, in addition to Joe Biden. Biden also played a significant role in the
attempted coverup of the White House's direct role in the 2016 foreign interference
operation against Donald Trump.
After the string of illegalities against Trump, which continued through his firing of FBI
Director James Comey, and after the brutal
Robert Mueller inquisition , which destroyed many lives but came up empty as to any crimes
by the President, we have now entered phase three of the coup against the President. As
Congressman Al Green (D-TX) and even Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have admitted: impeachment now
is necessary because, without it, Trump will win a second term. The same sentiment was
pronounced by the British House of Lords in their 2018 "UK Foreign
Policy in a Shifting World Order," in an order to their American satrapy: a second Trump
term must not happen.
Everyone who has appeared before the House Intelligence Committee so far, is up to their
ears in U.S./British regime-change operations, particularly the one conducted by the Obama
Administration in 2013-2014 in Ukraine, where Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland engineered regime
change on Russia's border, using Neo-Nazis as muscle, and creating a post-coup vassal-state
which included the very same Neo-Nazis as government officials. Joe Biden, who served as the
Obama Administration's "point man" on Ukraine, and Biden's State Department, National Endowment
for Democracy, and Atlantic Council buddies misnamed their atrocity, the "Revolution of
Dignity." Victoria Nuland, the case officer with Joe Biden for the coup, says the United States
spent $5 billion dollars in creating this fiasco. Her figures do not include substantial funds
delivered by the British government and NATO, along with George Soros and other privateers.
Like other regime-change wars, most prominently Iraq, this one installed a government of
colonial administrators, and resulted in a perfectly predictable, violent insurgency from those
sections of Ukraine that would never agree to an occupation government, particularly after
being attacked by the coup's "Right Sector" neo-Nazis. In Ukraine, this insurgency involved the
Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine, the Donbass, where, after the coup, the regions
of Donetsk and Lugansk declared themselves autonomous Republics. There is plenty of evidence
that the insurgency was provoked to facilitate a full-scale ethnic cleansing of this asset-rich
area which formerly housed that nation's manufacturing capacity and skilled
workforce.
March in Kiev on anniversary of the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (depicted
on flag), January 2015, Photo: All-Ukrainian Union
The conflict in the Donbass has killed over 13,000 people to date. And the coup resulted in
the further disintegration of Ukraine into Europe's poorest country. The operation replaced one
set of corrupt oligarchs who stole the country's riches after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
but were considered "soft" on Russia, with a different set of oligarchs who have voiced a
desire to go to war with Russia, while continuing the stealing.
Biden, Ukraine, and
Burisma
This is the context for the real Joe Biden corruption story in Ukraine and his son's
estimated $3 million dollar haul from one of the largest and most corrupt Ukrainian gas and oil
companies: Burisma . This is a story about the obsession of Joe Biden and others who went
out to cripple Russia's economy by shutting down the gas transit lines that pass from Russia,
through Ukraine, to Europe, while supplying Ukraine through Western oil companies shepherded
into the country by Biden, along with a scheme for fracking in the war-torn Donbass. They
pursued this while overtly threatening Russia with nuclear war, facilitated by their new vassal
state, Ukraine, on Russia's border -- placing the entire world in jeopardy by their madness. To
accomplish his gas gambit, Biden had to capture Burisma.
Then Vice President Joe Biden with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Secretary of
State John Kerry, Ambassador Victoria Nuland, and others in a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko on February 7, 2015.
Many of the British and American intelligence operatives who accomplished the Ukraine
"regime change" in 2014, turned their attention, in 2016, to destroying the political candidacy
of Donald Trump, smearing him as a Manchurian candidate because he publicly stated a desire for
better relations with Russia.
When Rudy Giuliani started to investigate Kiev's role in the illegal 2016 attempt to defeat
Donald Trump, he touched a "third rail" of British and American intelligence, one that goes all
the way back to British and American adoption and support of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (OUN-B) led by Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was an MI-6 agent, Lebed
became CIA. Earlier, during World War II, in collaboration with the Nazis, they slaughtered
thousands of Poles and Jews -- all in the name of defeating Russia. The Right Sector groups
used by Joe Biden for the coup and subsequently installed in the government, idolize Stepan
Bandera.
Now that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham have, as anticipated,
undertaken a full criminal investigation of the U.S., British and other intelligence figures
who led the 2016-2017 effort to defeat Donald Trump and subvert his presidency, the Ukrainian
aspect of this operation has become a very, very hot potato.
The appearance of the bogus Ukraine-aid "whistleblower" -- himself, we now know, a CIA
agent, expert in Ukraine, who previously worked with Joe Biden in the Obama White House --
represents an effort to block this story from serious investigation at all costs. It also aims
to delegitimize the entire Barr/Durham criminal investigation, as well as the imminent report
of the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Both DOJ investigations center
on illegalities in the first stage of the coup against Trump, prior to Mueller's appointment as
Special Counsel. And, most important, the bogus impeachment "inquiry" is yet another
full-spectrum information-warfare operation, using the media, fed by cascading, 24/7 bogus
headlines and leaks from the intelligence community and the Democrats in Congress, to tank the
President's standing with the American people and either impeach him or defeat him in
2020.
The Present Charade
We now know that the bogus whistleblower worked, covertly, with Congressman Adam Schiff's
staff to launder leaks about the President's July 25th phone call with incoming Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, into a new bogus narrative about the President. This
whistleblower is represented by a law firm that has actively sought whistleblowers from the
intelligence agencies against the President, posting leaflets and billboard ads outside the
agencies and offering to cover any and all expenses.
Paul Sperry, in an October 30th
article at Real Clear Investigations , states that everyone in Washington and the national
news media "knows" that the bogus whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. If true, it only highlights
the scandal embodied in the sham impeachment proceedings being run by the Democrats, it is the
equivalent of a hand grenade. Ciaramella worked in the Obama White House with Susan Rice, John
Brennan and Joe Biden on Ukraine. He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa, who ran Ukraine's
illegal 2016 election interference in the United States on behalf of Hillary Clinton. According
to a former NSC official, he got caught leaking to the media as an Obama holdover at the NSC
under Trump, where he chaired the Ukraine desk. His leaks framed the totally bogus narrative
that Putin caused the firing of James Comey by Trump. Rather than being fired,
Ciaramella returned to the CIA and his close friends, according to Sperry's story, joined Adam
Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, a most convenient setup.
The bogus whistleblower was also assisted by a new Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, Michael Atkinson, who dubbed this bogus complaint "credible" and "urgent." Atkinson
migrated from the leadership of the National Security Division of the Justice Department -- a
central control point in Phases 1 and 2 of the coup -- to the IG post, and promptly rewrote the
rules so that whistleblower complaints could be based on total hearsay and gossip, rather than
first-hand knowledge. In Atkinson's January 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner (D-VA) charged him with a mission of protecting
whistleblowers first and foremost. This was most strange coming from a committee that has
repeatedly acquiesced in the destruction of actual whistleblowers such as Tom Drake, Bill
Binney, Jeff Sterling, and Julian Assange. It suggests that a new "insurance policy" was being
worked on already by the higher echelons of the intelligence community and the most corrupted
committee in the Senate.
Surprise: the Transcript
To the surprise of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the coup's strategists, the President
released the actual transcript of his July 25th phone conversation with President Zelensky,
which, in any reasonable culture, should have ended the entire affair. The bogus
whistleblower's gossip was proven demonstrably false by the transcript. Washington, D.C. is
not, presently, such a culture.
In the call, President Trump congratulated Zelensky on his victory in the parliamentary
elections, and Zelensky promptly announced that he would be reforming his government to clean
up its legendary and horrific corruption. The President and Zelensky discussed the fact that
the United States is shouldering the burden of support for Ukraine, while Germany and other
European countries, which have the most immediate strategic interest, are not contributing
enough.
In the portion of the call the Democrats are trying to make an impeachable crime, President
Trump said he was concerned about Ukraine's intervention into the 2016 U.S. election on behalf
of Hillary Clinton and expressed concern that Zelensky is surrounded by some of the same people
who conducted those activities. Trump asked whether the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
computer server examined by CrowdStrike is in the possession of a Ukrainian oligarch. He asks
Zelensky to work with Attorney General Barr, who is conducting the investigation into the 2016
presidential election illegalities. He characterizes this request to investigate possible
Ukrainian illegalities in the 2016 election, and to speak with Attorney General Barr, as doing
him (Trump) a "favor."
The "favor," it is clear, had nothing to do with the 2020 elections or asking Ukraine to
"attack" Democrats and Joe Biden, as repeatedly mischaracterized by Democrats and the bogus
whistleblower. Instead, it had to do with investigating the ongoing coup in the United
States which threatens this nation's very existence .
It is Zelensky who brings up Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer, who has been conducting
his own investigation of Ukraine's interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton since January of
2019. The President then says that he had heard that a very good prosecutor in Ukraine was shut
down by some very bad people, and that the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie
Yovanovitch, was bad news, as were the people she was dealing with. The President then relates
that Joe Biden bragged about stopping the prosecution of Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company
where Hunter Biden sat on the Board. He says that whatever Zelensky can tell Attorney General
Barr about this would be great. Zelensky responds that Marie Yovanovitch was a bad ambassador
as she admired Petro Poroshenko, the previous President, and refused to accept Zelensky's
election.
That's it. There was absolutely nothing illegal or wrong here, despite the hair-on-fire
headlines fulminated daily by the news media and Adam Schiff -- the same "walls closing in"
nonsense that occurred daily during Russiagate. There is no reference to, "if you do this, I'll
do that." In fact, the Ukrainians were not even aware that the lethal military aid they were
expecting had been placed on temporary hold.
Unfortunately, the President, after the call, approved the lethal military aid to Ukraine
which Congress' war-mongers had ordered up in their continuing destructive madness about
"Russia, Russia, Russia." The aid was issued without any requirement whatsoever that Ukraine
produce anything to meet President Trump's concerns about 2016 election interference or the
corruption surrounding Burisma and/or Joe Biden. The aid was issued without any real guarantees
in place to ensure that lethal weaponry would not be put in the hands of the various Neo-Nazis
integrated into Ukraine's National Guard and militias, and who are now arrayed against
President Zelensky himself, charging that his effort to settle the war in the Donbass is a
sell-out to Russia.
Now if the President and his supporters choose to tell the real and whole truth to the
American people about what the Ukraine issue is really all about, the impeachers, so desperate
to block this from coming to light, will have hoisted themselves on their own petard in true
Shakespearian fashion, in the best boomerang imaginable. That story, the real story about Joe
Biden, Ukraine corruption, and the Ukrainian role in the effort to fix the 2016 election for
Hillary Clinton, is what we will set forth, in summary fashion, in what follows.
Then the Ukraine whistleblower story broke in September
The problem here is that the person in question does not fit well the definition of
"whistleblower" unless you want to change the meaning of this word.
A more plausible hypothesis is that Ciaramella (if it was he) was a Brennan spy in the
West Wing, which former key FBI Russaigaters Peter Strzok and Lisa Page named
"Charlie".
If Ciaramella was a "Confidential Informant" (CI) in no way he can be called
whistleblower, because it was his responsibility to produce regular reports about Trump
administration actions and intentions for FBI, CIA or both. And that makes him and his
handlers subjects to criminal investigation.
So then the question is, if this goes on through the election, will that be a
disaster? It may depend on what evidence comes out.
IMHO the intention is to drag it till the elections in order to repeat the success of
the influence of Mueller investigation on the 2018 elections results. Kind of "Hail Mary"
pass by Pelosi. Right now even Sanders has diminished chances against Trump due,
unfortunately, to his health problems (to say nothing about the fact that DNC would
prefer Trump to Sanders any day ;-).
But please understand that the real game will start only after the Senate will open
the trial. So the last thing Pelosi wants is to get this case on the Senate floor. At
this point Senate Republicans can wipe the floor with Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and company
with impunity as long as they wish: they can call any witnesses and request any material
they want, using help from their House colleagues, especially Nunes, who proved to be a
pretty capable politician, much superior caliber then Schiff (who is the victim of
nepotism, so to speak ;-) . Tables will be instantly turned.
They can also destroy Brennan, Marie Yovanovitch (who can be criminally prosecuted for
informing Ukrainians that they do not need to deal with Trump, just wait until
impeachment) , Taylor, Vindman (who can be court marshaled) and other initiators of
Ukrainegate.
The question only is whether they want to do it or not, because most Republicans do
not like Trump.
Warren chances in the atmosphere of impeachment hysteria are not looking good (and the
fact the she jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon proves that she is a weak politician.)
First of all, unhinged Trump is dangerous. Not only he is a much better showman, he is
a master of playing a victim. He will try to rally voters around the flag and make his
failures less significant for his core electorate (some faction of which, for example
anti-war Republicans, and a part of blue-collar workers might not vote at all).
In other words, this impeachment game (and it is a dirty game) may play for Trump the
same role that Iraq war played for Bush II: people understood that this reformed
alcoholic is a miserable failure, but voted for him anyway out of patriotism.
Likewise, many independents who were ready to defect Trump may hold their nose and
vote for Trump because they despise neoliberal Dems dirty games more then they despise
Trump. Kind of perverted version of LEV (lessee evil voting :-)
"Americans sharply divided over whether to impeach and remove Trump from office, Post-ABC
poll finds" [
WaPo ]. "The poll finds that 49 percent of Americans say the president should be
impeached and removed from office, while 47 percent say he should not. Among Democrats,
support for removing the president from office is overwhelming, with 82 percent in favor and
13 percent opposed. Among Republicans, it is almost the reverse, with 82 percent opposed and
18 percent in favor, even as the president's approval rating reached a new low among members
of his party. Independents are closely divided, with 47 percent favoring removal and 49
percent opposed." • If one wished to be completely cynical, one might argue that the
quick release and simple story of UkraineGate was more effective than the constantly shifting
story of RussiaGate.
"Impeach Trump. Then Move On." [David Brooks, New York Times ].
"During Watergate, voters trusted federal institutions and granted the impeachment process a
measure of legitimacy. Today's voters do not share that trust and will not regard an
intra-Washington process as legitimate," • Yep. More: "I get that Democrats feel they
have to proceed with impeachment to protect the Constitution and the rule of law. But there
is little chance they will come close to ousting the president. So I hope they set a
Thanksgiving deadline. Play the impeachment card through November, have the House vote and
then move on to other things." • The Democrats were muttering about the end of the year.
No way.
UPDATE "Why the Impeachment Fight Is Even Scarier Than You Think" [ Politico
]. "Democrats and Republicans might still disagree about policy, but they are increasingly
also at odds over the very foundations of our constitutional order. Political scientists have
a term for what the United States is witnessing right now. It's called "regime cleavage," a
division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing
system itself -- in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a
regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions
and laws may be ignored, subverted or replaced." • Seems reasonable. Here's the tell:
"Decades ago, a regime cleavage divided Chileans, with conservatives aligning against the
elected government of Salvador Allende and eventually leading to a coup that replaced him
with General Augusto Pinochet." How on earth to do you write about the coup in Chile without
mentioning the role of the intelligence community? Well, the same way you write about a
change in the Constitutional order today, without mentioning the intelligence community.
IMO there is a lot of evidence of incompetence and malfeasance in the leadership of the 17
agencies of the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A partial list
of failures and misdeeds:
1. They failed to predict the collapse of the USSR. There was a lot of scholarship on the
subject before the event and individual analysts were sure that the end was approaching for the
Soviet government but the agencies refused to believe that such a thing could happen. Why? The
IC accepted the insistence of the elected government of the US that history would continue in a
straight line forever with concomitant profits for industry.
2. They failed to predict 9/11. This failure was not "failing to connect the dots." It was
largely a failure to run clandestine HUMINT collection operations well enough to know what
al-Qa'ida was up to in detail. This was not an impossible task. The IC was offered the means of
penetration of the group and refused to take the risk of disclosure with subsequent damage to
executives careers even though it was well understood how dangerous AQ was after the East
Africa bombings.
3. They failed to infiltrate Al-Qa'ida before 9/11. Once again, this was not an impossible
task. I could tell you how, but ...
4. The FBI has repeatedly participated in DoJ efforts to "frame" persons charged in federal
courts. They helped DoJ prosecutors do that to Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. To my certain and
personal knowledge from my work as a consultant to the federal courts and an expert witness in
national security cases the FBI/DoJ have repeatedly withheld evidence from the discovery
process in which security cleared defense attorneys were due this knowledge, I have seen the
FBI bribe witnesses to testify against defendants on what amounted to a contingency basis,
i.e., no conviction, no fee.
5. And then there is the current murky situation concerning the leaders of the IC; Brennan,
Clapper etc., and the leaders of the FBI. IMO it is clear that whatever they did exactly, they
aligned themselves against Candidate/President elect Trump.
There are many, many more examples but time and space available here must limit my
recitation of these issues.
Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we pay the leaders of
these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men and women. Let us
send these swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work hard for whatever
money they earn.
TTG and I are agreed that the very first thing to do is strip CIA of whatever role they
still have in the world of Covert Action. CA includes all measures short of war but more
violent than diplomacy that are taken to implement legal US foreign policy. The CIA should not
have this mission, one they have shared with the armed forces since 9/11. CIA's present mission
is to serve as the main US Clandestine Service, backed up by the military. In this role they
are supposed to recruit foreigners to spy for us but also to run a large part of CA. It is
obvious to anyone who has watched them try to do that over many decades that they simply lack
the skills needed. Watching them try, is like watching a monkey try to f---k a football. In
their efforts to comply with this mission the civilian leadership of CIA hire people who once
were soldiers but who sought other employment and they also borrow junior soldiers from Army
Special Forces. Why not cut out the "middle man" in the process and have the military run
CA?
An argument can be made that the FBI, the spawn of J. Edgar Hoover's peculiar brain (he
amassed dossiers on US politicians in order to control them) and the CIA an artifact of the
Cold War (which ALWAYS had too much power) should simply be torn down as institutions and
replaced with other government bodies more reflective of our collective nation values.
The country needs a police agency that obeys the law. The country needs a small agency to
conduct strategic level penetrations of important foreign threats.
Should existing structures like the US Marshal's Service and/or DIA be given the missions of
the CIA and FBI or should altogether new groups be constructed with better controls inflicted
on them?
Well over a decade and half ago our local Committee on Foreign Relations (parent company
Council on Foreign Relations CFT) had a guest speaker on this exact topic -what are we
getting from the millions (billions?) spent on our IC community.
He also at that time presented a compelling list of intelligence failures, and questioned
the value of this operation's continued existence. Wish I could recall who the speaker was,
other than being surprised such clearly "anti-government" position was being presented under
the auspices of the CFR.
Sir,
It seems like we've reached a juncture where burning these agencies to the ground is
necessary. You'd greatly expand the US Marshall's investigative abilities and pass the CIA's
mission over to the military. Fine. However, you've still got the DoJ involved with the
Marshalls and you've got people like Vindman in the military and you've got people like
Clinton and Kerry at State, etc. Why wouldn't the Marshalls and military, in time, become as
corrupt and incompetent as the FBI and CIA?
Then there's the lack of congressional and executive oversight (or worse, mal-direction)
that has allowed a lot of the corruption and incompetence to flourish. Our elected reps are,
for the most part, very shabby people.
So I'm not optimistic about the longer term impact, but yeah, burn them down as an object
lesson for the time being.
You could start your bill of particulars a lot earlier than 1991. The CIA systematically
overstated the capabilities of the Soviet Union over a period of 40 years. That had serious
policy implications which reach right down to the present day. Then there were the Bay of
Pigs failure and Aldrich Ames.
It is said that Greed is the root of all evil.
Uncontrolled capitalism is Greed.
Your Congress and Senate are bought by money, To become elected to any government position
usually goes to the highest bidder.
Board members get rich by share buybacks that drain the blood from your companies enriching a
few shareholders on the way. One only needs to use Boeing as example once a great innovator
and engineering company now it is like a sleigh of hands.
So of course all levels of government are corrupted
Hollywood and the media controlled by a few extremely wealthy who's agenda certainly does not
support America or the American people.
So to talk about your changing your letter agencies is to try to fix the symptoms not the
cause.
Uncontrolled capitalism is nothing more than a willing buyer meeting a willing seller. Both
are mutually greedy - one wants a high price; one wants a low price. Nothing has changed.
Maybe you are talking about class envy, Chibi.
Turning to the FBI, why should the agency exist at all? We got along fine for more than a
century without it. It didn't serve its present "elite" role until 1982 and it has been a
notable failure in that regard, as demonstrated by your list.
Presently, there are more than 30 different armed law enforcement agencies in the federal
government--everything from the Marshalls Service to Fish & Wildlife. At best the FBI is
redundant.
How can they be cleaned out when the whole government appears infiltrated with individuals
disloyal to the Constitution. And the hypocrites say this
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I am about to enter: So help me God."
turcopolier
"No. Neocons seek world domination under their rule. The US is just a tool for them."
As far as I can see they hate National Borders as you have stated. I wouldn't be surprised
at this point that the massive illegal immigration was allowed to happen in order to destroy
the fabric of society in the United States with the eventual goal of a North American Union.
The EU is definitely the model for a "Republic" of World Governments which will only be a
mask or veil for a tyranny much as it is today. But much much worse is planned in my
opinion.
It is time individuals start deciding which Father they will follow. The "God" of this
World known as Death or the God of Life. That's the way it was put to me. And that's the way
it will be put to the inhabitants of Planet Earth. We will either have a Kingdom of Hell or a
Kingdom of Heaven. No more straddling the fence.
I will never betray him again. And look forward to meeting the Bastard on the
Battlefield.
Sometimes analysis of long serving success may reveal how the nation might proceed. A case in
point -- Morris, Jack and Benjamin Childs and their wives. Morris who?
Morris and Jack Childs were early graduates of a 1920 Soviet spy school. They returned to
the US and operated in the Illinois area with some success, especially during the Depression
years. Morris developed a heart condition during WWII and was abandoned by the Communist
Party of America. His brothers dropped extraneous activity and focused their time and
resources on helping him.
Then . . . the FBI came calling. At government expense Morris was moved to the Mayo Clinic
and Jack was instructed to solicit assistance from Party Chapters all across the US. The
money received was minimal, but donors were enthusiastically thanked.
By 1950, Morris had risen to the #2 position in the Communist Party of America, which
involved his visiting Russia for a month at a time, several times every year to discuss
budget and operations. As a communist graduate of the "heroic" age, he became a discreet
father figure for everyone in the Politburo. (All his fellow graduates had been eliminated
during the Stalin years.) His friends in Moscow learned that their confidences and expressed
annoyances were sympathetically discussed, but never shared with rivals. Ultimately, the
Kremlin asked him to visit Mao in Peking, Castro in Havana to smooth over disputes -- Morris
was the go-to friend to the Politburo.
A word about Jack and Benjamin. They established a mail-order business selling white shoes
and clothes to nurses, called "Women in White," as a cover for the income Morris enjoyed as
an invalid. Periodically, Jack would visit New York to order clothing and collect Soviet
funds, using time-consuming Soviet methods to detect whether he was being followed.
The FBI never revealed anything about the Childs. In fact, many of Morris' FBI handlers in
Chicago were never promoted from modest GS 11 and 12 positions. The very valuable
intelligence delivered by Morris was disguised by the FBI handlers in "think essays," or as
electronic intercepts.
By 1977, Morris was visibly failing. He made one last trip to Moscow and Andropov
organized a magnificent dinner for hundreds in the Kremlin. On his return to Chicago, an
unknown moving company assisted the family to relocate to Florida amid numerous well wishing
farewells. Somehow, communication with the Childs in Florida ceased -- perhaps Morris had
died.
For a fascinating read: Operation Solo: The FBI's Man in the Kremlin, by John Daniel
Barron.
As Colonel Lang said, the first step is to transfer all covert action to DoD. That's where it
belongs. The CIA grabbed onto that as it became their raison d'être with their
"capture, kill" mantra after 9/11 and it has only gotten worse since then. The majority of
their paramilitary officers are former SF soldiers and Rangers. We might as well hire these
former soldiers back into DIA and JSOC similar to the Military Intelligence Civilian Excepted
Career Program long used by the Army and DIA for HUMINT officers. Hell, we've already used
civilian HUMINTers in special mission units. I was one of them.
The CIA is largely into liaison and Embassy operations, the cocktail party circuit. The
Army and, later, the DIA relied mainly on rather scruffy and low level commercial cover
operations. In my opinion, it takes a lot more skill to develop and run HUMINT operations
using a scruffy, nobody cover than than as an Embassy official. We, the military, can do both
well. I don't know if the same can be said of most CIA officers. Although, I have to admit
the CIA does a much better job at developing cover support mechanisms. Maybe that's a niche
for them. Having said that, there are more than enough intelligence requirements to keep two
HUMINT organizations fully employed. Let DIA support DoD's requirements and let a CIA without
CA or paramilitary capabilities support DoS, Commerce Department, and DOE requirements. CIA
is always trying to hog military support. Stay in your lane!
I agree with Eric Newhill in that much of the FBI's problems lie with the DOJ and the
court system. Our adversarial system either seeks a conviction or seeks to avoid a
conviction. Truth and justice take a backseat to these goals. Maybe there should be
separation of law enforcement and counter-intelligence. I'm not sure how that would work yet,
but that whole Homeland Security mess ought to be included in our bonfire of the
Agencies.
From a mere citizen of our battered Republic, no expertise in intelligence work other than
distrusting everything the Borg wants me to believe, I say huzzah to you sir. As others said,
the rot infects all society in interlocking, Byzantine knots. But the I.C. is a good place to
start. After all, no reforms will matter if we let these maniacs pull us into thermonuclear
extinction. Priorities.
No organization is immune from the effects of men and women with huge egos and a lust for
power---not the elected government institutions, the government bureaucracy, the military, or
even the church. One consolation throughout this attempted "coup" upon Trump has been the
fact that the full weight of the military is not behind this. What happens if our foreign
intelligence is handled by the military and it becomes corrupt? Who is to stop them?
Can we talk about what is so much at stake that those inside our government would plot
against our system of government, just to ensure they get their hands on it?
'Power" is not the answer -- power to do what? Is it just money- hands on our own tax
money? Ego. Is it a guy thing? Hanging on to nice house in, Foxhall, Bethesda or Spring
Valley?
What drove this insider cabal, who already were at the peak of their power in this the
most powerful nation on the planet, to plot this alleged coup?
Given Ciaramella's rise within the Obama administration intelligence community, radio host
Rush Limbaugh frames
him as a spy
:
"He's lurking in there in the West Wing as an Obama holdover.
He's essentially a
spy for John Brennan
, and he's there to do the dirty work of the deep state." -
Rush
Limbaugh
Limbaugh cites journalist
Sharyl Attkisson
who wrote in response to Sperry's 'outing' of Ciaramella, " If the reporting
is correct, it implies
the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close
to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.
"
And if Ciaramella
was
a deep-state spy in the West Wing,
former FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are potentially involved
- as pieced together by
Fox News
contributor and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who starts with an
April 25 letter
from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) to Attorney General
William Barr asking about
cryptic text messages between Strzok and Page
in which
they discuss someone named "Charlie" who may be "the CI guy."
Bongino posits that Strzok and Page may be talking about Ciaramella being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy - and notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he included
a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced
char
-a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
Finally,
also discussed in Bongino's podcast, is an invitation for a series of events
sponsored by major Clinton Foundation donor ($25 million) and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk
in the spring of 2016
. It looks to be an Ukrainian outreach type of event. Ukrainian
member of parliament Olga Bielkova is scheduled to meet with none other than Eric Ciaramella.
She hates Trump. (This can be viewed at 22:08 in the video.)
The emerging image of EC shows him to be a hyper-partisan Democrat, well-connected
within the ranks of the deep state, who was possibly spying on the Trump White House for the FBI
.
As voters see the individual behind the whistleblower complaint which has triggered an
impeachment inquiry, they will "have thoughts" about the Democrats.
Perhaps we'll find out more about Ciaramella from
John Durham
, the prosecutor
appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the "Russiagate" counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign. As Rush Limbaugh puts it, this is a race between impeachment and a
Durham indictment.
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's
intervention in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian interference in
the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The
public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even
contradicting the facts the media create an opening for Trump
to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
There are some serious questions around the Biden family
involvement in the Ukraine that the media have not picked up
on.
The first regards the ownership of the company which hired
Joe Biden's son Hunter for an exorbitant amount of money while
Joe Biden ran the U.S. Ukraine policy.
The second question is about the firing of the Viktor
Shokin, the former Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. Trump
accuses Joe Biden of having intervened in favor of his son's
sponsor to get Shokin fired. The timeline below supports that
assertion.
That Lisa Page needs to be put in prison for a long ******* time.
She's been playing her **** **** games with Congress and Trump for
a couple of years, then she lies under oath. **** her, send her
away.
Who ever was running that loser SJW Charlie needs to be
indicted and thrown in prison as well.
Starting with Hillary, Obama, Biden, Holder, Brennan, Clapper,
Strock, Page, Comey, and that cankle pig Loretta Lynch...this is
good start.....and by the way, don't let that pig Donna Brazille
off either for what she did..all of these people need to pay. And
when they pay, then it is payback for Rachel Maddow...Don Lemon,
Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnel, Anderson Cooper, etc.
And then...who else do I want to see BURN IN HELL...Pelosi,
Schiff, Waters, Fat **** Nadler, and that pig Shiela "Hand them an
envelope of cash" Lee. I almost forgot that piece of **** Eric
Swalwell.
You left out Criminal at Large, Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Let's
also not forget the Awan brothers. Anthony Weiner's laptop,
Seth Rich & Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious
Psychopath at Large, Hillary Rodham Clinton's 33,000 missing
emails.
I know Lieutenant Colonel Alex
Vindman from a combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision 13 in Grafenwoher, Germany.
He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was assigned to the Joint Multinational Training
Command within US Army Europe. Vindman worked coordination with the Russian 15th Peacekeeping
Brigade, and I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the US Army
Europe Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.
Share
photo credit:
Адміністрація
Президента
України
Alexander Vindman
I have a confession. I behaved badly recently, and I'm just going to admit it.
As a guest at a dinner party in Georgetown, I stormed in and started bossing everyone
around. First, I demanded that the foyer be painted a different color and wainscoting be added
to the dining room. Then I had my hosts assemble their children so I could give them all
different names. Before making my exit, I grabbed two legs of turkey off the entree platter and
stuffed them in my purse.
I have a second confession. None of that happened. But if it had, I would be exactly like
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman.
He was born in Ukraine and raised there until age 3 1/2, when he was invited to our country.
As you've no doubt heard, he served in our military. Thank you for your service, Colonel!
Now he is the top Ukrainian adviser on the National Security Council. Of all the people who
could look out for the U.S.'s interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, we got someone who was born
there.
As such, Vindman was permitted to listen to a phone call the president of the United States
made to the president of Ukraine -- a completely unnecessary, pro forma task.
So, naturally, when he had a policy disagreement with President Trump pertaining to the
country he was born in, he thought he had a responsibility to agitate for removal proceedings
against the duly elected U.S. president, just as I might have taken issue with the carpets in
the Georgetown townhouse.
"Foreign policy is the idiot's shortcut to imagined erudition, the
last refuge of the insufferable."
For some reason, we keep hearing about Col. Vindman's valor and patriotism. I don't doubt
that he's a super swell guy. But unless I missed it in the newspapers at the time, I don't
believe he was elected president in 2016. In fact, there's a specific constitutional provision
that prevents Col. Vindman from ever being president: He wasn't born here.
Study question: Why might the framers have added that clause?
It would be bad enough if Col. Vindman's policy disagreement with the president had to do
with U.S. policy on Mexico or North Korea. But it was about the country where Col. Vindman was
born.
We're always told that Democrats don't have to prove wrongdoing by Trump -- for example,
under the emoluments clause, in his foreign policy negotiations or when he fired his FBI
director. Rather, it's claimed that Trump's conduct creates the appearance of impropriety.
Well, having a Ukrainian-born analyst butt in to ensure U.S. foreign aid flows effortlessly
to the country of his birth gives the appearance that he's concerned about fairness to Ukraine.
That's not what this is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about what's in the best
interests of the United States.
Worse, Vindman was dealing with the U.S.'s Ukrainian policy versus Russia, which Ukrainians
hate because Stalin murdered millions of them. It's like having an Armenian advise on whether
we should be hostile to Turkey.
This is not the usual dual loyalty claim insultingly attributed to Irish or Jewish Americans
who were born in this country. Lots of us have admixtures of other nationalities.
But when you were actually born in another country and that's the precise policy matter
you're sticking your nose into, people are going to wonder if it's really our national
interests you're looking out for.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 1: Immigrants are required to wait a minimum of two
(2) generations before bossing around the most successful, prosperous, free country on Earth,
and fully three (3) generations before advising on our government's policy toward the countries
of their forefathers.
We also need a constitutional amendment directed at 10th-generation Americans who fancy
themselves foreign policy experts. Foreign policy is the idiot's shortcut to imagined
erudition, the last refuge of the insufferable.
Sen. Lindsey Graham was on TV last week, bragging about how he'd been to Syria --
Afghanistan? Iraq? Who cares! -- 75 times.
Not one person who voted for Graham has the peace and contentment of Syrians on his Top Ten
Concerns list. Like everyone else, South Carolinians care about their jobs, their safety, their
neighborhoods, their country.
But Sen. Graham wouldn't sound like a deep intellectual if he went on TV and started talking
about water treatment plants, despite the fact that clean drinking water is of far greater
interest to his constituents.
It's very romantic to think of yourself as a geopolitical chess player, jetting around the
globe and staying in five-star hotels in Riyadh and Paris, chatting with dictators and
reporting back your impressions as a Master of the Universe -- I'm very concerned about the
leadership of the Kurds Richard Haas wrote a fascinating treatise about how our policy has been
deficient in the following nine ways I'll be sure to bring that up next week when I'm meeting
with the E.U.
These are the kinds of people who would join Mensa.
It would be annoying enough if government officials, whose salaries we pay, spent all their
time working on the betterment of other nations, but at least everything turned out GREAT. In
fact, however, they're never right, they always make things worse, and they never pay a price
because, again, no one cares.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2: Elected officials may take one government-funded
boondoggle abroad for every three (3) trips they make to our southern border.
Petri Krohn's comment @37 "ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT"
Little mentioned is the server in Ukraine which was brought up in the phone call. Barr's
investigation has become a criminal investigation and interested in a server in Ukraine.
The impeachment farce is trying to put the focus on Biden, but the server may be what they
are trying to protect.
This impeachment show looks to be a rearguard or defensive action to try and stop the Barr
criminal investigation into russiagate.
Given Ciaramella's rise within the Obama administration intelligence community, radio host
Rush Limbaugh frames
him as a spy
:
"He's lurking in there in the West Wing as an Obama holdover.
He's essentially a
spy for John Brennan
, and he's there to do the dirty work of the deep state." -
Rush
Limbaugh
Limbaugh cites journalist
Sharyl Attkisson
who wrote in response to Sperry's 'outing' of Ciaramella, " If the reporting
is correct, it implies
the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close
to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.
"
And if Ciaramella
was
a deep-state spy in the West Wing,
former FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are potentially involved
- as pieced together by
Fox News
contributor and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who starts with an
April 25 letter
from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) to Attorney General
William Barr asking about
cryptic text messages between Strzok and Page
in which
they discuss someone named "Charlie" who may be "the CI guy."
Bongino posits that Strzok and Page may be talking about Ciaramella being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy - and notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he included
a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced
char
-a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
Finally,
also discussed in Bongino's podcast, is an invitation for a series of events
sponsored by major Clinton Foundation donor ($25 million) and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk
in the spring of 2016
. It looks to be an Ukrainian outreach type of event. Ukrainian
member of parliament Olga Bielkova is scheduled to meet with none other than Eric Ciaramella.
She hates Trump. (This can be viewed at 22:08 in the video.)
The emerging image of EC shows him to be a hyper-partisan Democrat, well-connected
within the ranks of the deep state, who was possibly spying on the Trump White House for the FBI
.
As voters see the individual behind the whistleblower complaint which has triggered an
impeachment inquiry, they will "have thoughts" about the Democrats.
Perhaps we'll find out more about Ciaramella from
John Durham
, the prosecutor
appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the "Russiagate" counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign. As Rush Limbaugh puts it, this is a race between impeachment and a
Durham indictment.
"... This led to the formation of the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank Church, commenting on the committees’ findings, warned that the NSA has the capability “to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency… operate[s] within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.” ..."
"... The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted, fundamentally, in the prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy interests. They exposed sweeping abuses of democratic rights, from the COINTELPRO operation exposed by the Church Committee, to the revelation of the Rex 84 plan for mass detention of “subversive” elements documented by the Iran-Contra hearings. ..."
"... the present impeachment hearing is the exact opposite of the investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra ..."
"... The broad unpopularity of war abroad has created a crisis of legitimacy for the Democrats’ impeachment drive. As might be expected, the Democrats have not mobilized significant popular support on this basis. ..."
"... And definitely any rational conclusion would not call for, as proposed by church commission, doomed to failure futile act of what amounts to harsh criticism, admonition of security and surveillance apparatus, an effective slap in a cheek proposing supposed remedial therapy that resembled instructing alcoholic to drink two not four drinks a day and call it moderation and compliance with.. US constitutional norms. ..."
"... And supposed fig leaf of FISA court pushed by Church Commission proven to never stopping any illegal spying and only confirming that US was always run by ruling elite delegating executive power to Deep State security and surveillance apparatus while POTUS belongs to stage theatrics of bourgeois liberal political puppet show. ..."
"... Unexpected benefit of Trump was that he inadvertently revealed true reality of US system of power where elections are meaningless as elected puppets have no power at all, they only may, more or less convincingly, pretend that they do if they smartly align their own blabbering with decisions already taken by ruling elite and being executed by Deep State. ..."
"... As a narcissistic oligarch Trump has pathological inability to follow, he had to reverse his decisions 99% of time after the fact. ..."
"... All is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the political establishment . It relies on ''workers being donkeys '' but alas for them the ''donkeys'' have found their political voice and for whatever the crimes of Trump, many if not most, remember the treachery of the Democrats ..."
"... Notice how the impeachment of Nixon, the Reagan Iran-Contra investigation, and now Trump's impeachment are all related to decades of insidious security state machinations tied to US imperialism and neoliberalism. ..."
"... Presidents don't get impeached or investigated for "committing social crimes" against the working-class they're only investigated, prosecuted or impeached when they lose favor with factions of the security state and the ruling class. Investigations of presidents are always internecine battles between segments of the military/surveillance/corporate state. ..."
"... If that was NOT the case, then Clinton, Bush, and Obama would have been impeached for war crimes. Trump, would be impeached not for his Ukraine phone call, but for his policies that resulted in the death of migrant children, the corruption within federal agencies, the deregulation of the EPA accelerating planetary ecocide, and for his numerous promises to the working-class about providing decent healthcare and good paying jobs, but were nothing but lies. ..."
"... The only thing that has changed over the last four decades is that the security state is now fully partnered with corporate mainstream media news and entertainment. They work seamlessly to propagandize the American public so that even liberals are convinced that being a Joe McCarthyite Russophobe is progressive ..."
In light of Thursday’s vote in the US House of Representatives to formalize the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump,
it is worth contrasting the events now unfolding in Washington to those that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon 45
years ago.
In July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The direct
cause of the impeachment proceeding was the Watergate scandal, in which Nixon directed a group of burglars known as the
“White House Plumbers” to break into and wiretap the offices of the Democratic National Committee.
However, the impeachment inquiry unveiled a far broader range of crimes by the administration. Among the five articles
of impeachment debated on the committee was one that accused Nixon of “the submission to Congress of false and misleading
statements concerning the existence, scope, and nature of American bombing operations in Cambodia” in connection to the
Vietnam War.
Before Watergate, the first task of Nixon’s “plumbers” was to burglarize the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.
The aim was to discredit the man who released the Pentagon Papers, which documented that the White House “systematically
lied, not only to the public but also to Congress,” about the conduct of the war.
This burglary, as one commentator noted, linked “Vietnam and Watergate in one continuous 1961-to-1975 story.”
“In 1973 the Senate Watergate Committee investigation revealed that the executive branch had directed national
intelligence agencies to carry out constitutionally questionable domestic security operations,” notes the official history
by the United States Senate. “In 1974 Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published a front-page New York
Times article claiming that the CIA had been spying on anti-war activists for more than a decade, violating the
agency’s charter.”
This led to the formation of the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank
Church, commenting on the committees’ findings, warned that the NSA has the capability “to make tyranny total in America,
and we must see to it that this agency… operate[s] within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over
that abyss.”
Twelve years later, another crisis erupted in Washington, which nearly led to the impeachment of Ronald Reagan, who was
only saved by the unwillingness of the Democrats to remove him.
The crisis was triggered by the revelation that the Reagan administration had concocted a scheme to sell arms to Iran
in order to buy weapons to finance an illegal war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. According to the CIA officer
in charge of the covert war, the Contras routinely murdered “civilians and Sandinista officials in the provinces, as well
as heads of cooperatives, nurses, doctors and judges.”
The investigation revealed that the Reagan administration flagrantly violated the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress
to prohibit US government assistance to the Contras.
The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted, fundamentally, in the
prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy interests. They exposed sweeping abuses of democratic
rights, from the COINTELPRO operation exposed by the Church Committee, to the revelation of the Rex 84 plan for mass
detention of “subversive” elements documented by the Iran-Contra hearings.
One need only review this history to see that the present impeachment hearing is the exact opposite of the
investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra. Instead of exposing and curbing the criminal activities of the US intelligence
agencies and military, it is aimed at expanding and empowering them.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi summed up the basis of the impeachment inquiry as follows: “In one phone conversation, he
[Trump] undermined our national security by withholding military assistance to a country [Ukraine] that has been voted on
by the Congress of the United States—to the benefit of the Russians.”
Trump, as former CIA Director David Petraeus recently put it, stands accused of “holding up assistance that’s
desperately needed by those who are on the front lines” of a war waged by the US-backed Ukrainian government against
forces aligned with Russia. Petraeus added, “This is World War I… it's a very hot war still going on.”
The broad unpopularity of war abroad has created a crisis of legitimacy for the Democrats’ impeachment drive. As might
be expected, the Democrats have not mobilized significant popular support on this basis. As Times columnist David
Brooks wrote, “For most [Americans], impeachment is not a priority. It’s a dull background noise… the fundamental reality
is that many Americans are indifferent.”
In fact, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has more in common with the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the Republicans,
in which a concocted sexual scandal was used as a cover for a right-wing agenda.
From the outset, as the World Socialist Web Site has explained, the Democrats’ opposition to Trump has had
nothing in common with the popular opposition to his fascistic administration. It is one side in a conflict within the
capitalist ruling class and the state, primarily over foreign policy questions.
From the day of Trump’s inauguration, when millions protested across the country, the Democratic Party has worked to
contain popular anger and channel it behind a pro-war agenda. It has sought to suppress opposition to Trump’s fascistic
assault on immigrants, his moves toward dictatorship, his praise for neo-Nazis, his tax cuts for the rich and his attacks
on social programs for workers and poor people.
The Democrats are neither able to nor willing to make any democratic appeal to the popular hatred of Trump. Having long
ago abandoned any program of social reform directed toward the working class, the Democratic Party has evolved into an
organization based on an alliance of the intelligence agencies, sections of finance and the affluent upper-middle class.
The current impeachment drive has no progressive or democratic content. The Democrats are attempting to impeach Trump
on false pretenses, concealing their real objectives. It has all the elements, in other words, of a palace coup.
As the Socialist Equality Party Political Committee wrote in its
statement posted October 14, “No to American
fascism! Build a mass movement to force Trump out!”:
So long as the conflict is confined to the divisions within the ruling class, there can be no democratic or
progressive outcome. Should the impeachment drive of the Democrats fail, it will strengthen Trump’s political position.
Should it succeed, it will elevate Trump’s factotum, Mike Pence, to the presidency. Moreover, impeachment will actually
strengthen the political influence of the CIA and FBI over the White House. It will legitimize a foreign policy based
on an anti-Russia hysteria that will justify a dangerous confrontation with a nuclear-armed power. Either outcome
represents an immense danger to the working class.
The fight against Trump can only take a progressive character to the extent that is completely separate from, and
hostile to, the palace coup being orchestrated by the Democrats on behalf of the intelligence agencies and the military.
It must be conducted by the working class through the expansion of the class struggle against war, dictatorship and
social inequality. It must be informed by a conscious struggle to put an end to capitalism, the source of war and
inequality, and establish a socialist society.
As author correctly point out true crimes of POTUS against life, human rights, against peace,
tranquility and prosperity committed in the name not of American people but on orders from
ruling elite he serves were never on trial and so called oversight procedures were all sham.
Example of praised Church commission that supposedly rein in CIA and NSA:
Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank Church,
commenting on the committees' findings, warned that the NSA has the capability "to make
tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency operate[s] within the law
and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.
Would that shocking disclosure of a grave, existential threat to democracy not solicit the
only rational response namely abolition, dismantling and prosecution of all US security
agencies including political police called FBI?
And definitely any rational conclusion would not call for, as proposed by church
commission, doomed to failure futile act of what amounts to harsh criticism, admonition of
security and surveillance apparatus, an effective slap in a cheek proposing supposed remedial
therapy that resembled instructing alcoholic to drink two not four drinks a day and call it
moderation and compliance with.. US constitutional norms.
And supposed fig leaf of FISA court pushed by Church Commission proven to never stopping
any illegal spying and only confirming that US was always run by ruling elite delegating
executive power to Deep State security and surveillance apparatus while POTUS belongs to
stage theatrics of bourgeois liberal political puppet show.
Unexpected benefit of Trump was that he inadvertently revealed true reality of US system
of power where elections are meaningless as elected puppets have no power at all, they only
may, more or less convincingly, pretend that they do if they smartly align their own
blabbering with decisions already taken by ruling elite and being executed by Deep State.
As a narcissistic oligarch Trump has pathological inability to follow, he had to reverse his
decisions 99% of time after the fact.
Impeachment? Hollow spectacle to cover up real high crimes and misdemeanors.
All is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the political establishment . It relies on
''workers being donkeys '' but alas for them the ''donkeys'' have found their political voice
and for whatever the crimes of Trump, many if not most, remember the treachery of the
Democrats.
As this tale plays itself out, it does so in a world where the condition of the working
class may be confused somewhat, but the condition for the ruling class is ''hopeless''.
They simply have ''no'' solutions based on the free market and a nationalist perspective
that the working class could be remotely interested in .
"The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted,
fundamentally, in the prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy
interests.
One need only review this history to see that the present impeachment hearing is the exact
opposite of the investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra. Instead of exposing and curbing
the criminal activities of the US intelligence agencies and military, it is aimed at
expanding and empowering them."
Notice how the impeachment of Nixon, the Reagan Iran-Contra investigation, and now Trump's
impeachment are all related to decades of insidious security state machinations tied to US
imperialism and neoliberalism.
Even Lewinisky's "blue dress" was not just about Bill Clinton's debauchery which was a
known fact since Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, but was used by the intelligence agencies
as leverage to ensure the continuation of military interventions in the Middle East, Eastern
Europe, and Africa as well as the implementation of extremely exploitative economic polices
in the US and abroad transferring enormous wealth to Wall Street, the big banks and the arms
industry.
Presidents don't get impeached or investigated for "committing social crimes" against
the working-class they're only investigated, prosecuted or impeached when they lose favor
with factions of the security state and the ruling class. Investigations of presidents are
always internecine battles between segments of the military/surveillance/corporate
state.
If that was NOT the case, then Clinton, Bush, and Obama would have been impeached for
war crimes. Trump, would be impeached not for his Ukraine phone call, but for his policies
that resulted in the death of migrant children, the corruption within federal agencies, the
deregulation of the EPA accelerating planetary ecocide, and for his numerous promises to the
working-class about providing decent healthcare and good paying jobs, but were nothing but
lies.
The only thing that has changed over the last four decades is that the security state
is now fully partnered with corporate mainstream media news and entertainment. They work
seamlessly to propagandize the American public so that even liberals are convinced that being
a Joe McCarthyite Russophobe is progressive .
"... The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or supply documents to them. ..."
"... Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. ..."
"... There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one of his top aides. ..."
"... General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat." ..."
"... Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in Syria. ..."
"... Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in Washington. ..."
By a near party-line vote of 232-196, the US House of Representatives voted Thursday for a
resolution laying out the procedures for the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump
that was begun September 24. The resolution sets the stage for the holding of public, televised
hearings and the likely drawing up of articles of impeachment in the course of the next
month.
Only two Democrats out of 233 in the House voted against the resolution, Jeff Van Drew of
New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota. Only one member elected as a Republican, Justin
Amash of Michigan, voted for the resolution. He left the Republican Party in July because of
his support for impeachment, and he now sits as an independent.
The sharp divisions over the resolution were reflected in the hour-long debate, in which
Republican defenders of Trump denounced the impeachment inquiry with hysterical anticommunist
rhetoric, calling it "Soviet-style" and a "show trial." Democrats wrapped themselves in the
American flag -- or displayed it on a large placard as they spoke, in the case of Speaker Nancy
Pelosi -- and denounced Trump for endangering US "national security."
The procedure laid down in the eight-page resolution, drafted Wednesday by the House Rules
Committee, gives an outsized role to the House Intelligence Committee, which is to begin public
hearings sometime in November at which many of the witnesses who have testified behind closed
doors will be asked to do so again in front of television cameras.
The Intelligence Committee, along with four other committees conducting investigations into
various aspects of President Trump's personal, business and official conduct, will report its
findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually draw up any articles of impeachment,
vote on them, and send them to the full House for final action.
The overall procedures, including provisions for extended questioning of witnesses by
representatives of both the majority and minority parties, conform generally to similar
measures adopted during the impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon in 1974 and
President Bill Clinton in 1998.
The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend
and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his
order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or
supply documents to them.
In the event of continued presidential stonewalling of the House committees, the resolution
provides that the chair of the Judiciary Committee "shall have the discretion to impose
appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the president or his counsel
under these procedures to call or question witnesses."
In other words, if Trump continues to block testimony and evidence, his attorneys will not
be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses who do appear despite the full-throated opposition
of the White House. Given that many officials and former officials of the Trump administration
have agreed to testify under subpoena, this could become a significant issue.
The special role of the House Intelligence Committee underscores the reactionary nature of
the Democrats' impeachment drive. Trump is being targeted, not for his real crimes as
president, attacking immigrants, undermining democratic rights, and asserting quasi-dictatorial
powers, but for his foreign policy actions that are opposed by a substantial section of the US
military-intelligence apparatus.
The witnesses testifying before the closed-door sessions of the Intelligence Committee are
not immigrant mothers, cruelly and in some cases permanently separated from their children, or
the victims of Trump-inspired fascist gunmen like the El Paso mass shooter. Instead, they are
an array of State Department and military officials at odds with Trump's efforts to browbeat
the government of Ukraine into supplying him with political dirt against former vice president
Joe Biden, viewed by Trump as a likely opponent in the 2020 election.
Particularly significant in that context is the announcement that the Intelligence Committee
has set a November 7 date for the testimony of John Bolton, Trump's former national security
advisor. It is not clear whether Bolton will testify, but the potential alignment of the
Democrats and one of the most notorious war criminals in the American government is a clear
demonstration of the reactionary motives of the Democrats, who are acting as front men for
rabid warmongers in the national-security state.
Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's
top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the
National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons
of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order
to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China
from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian
Oceans.
Morrison is the highest-ranking Trump aide to provide evidence to the Intelligence
Committee, and he announced his impending departure from the White House on Wednesday night,
hours before he was sworn in as a witness. According to leaks to the press from the closed-door
hearing, Morrison largely confirmed the testimony of other witnesses, particularly Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, that there was a direct quid pro quo involved in US policy towards Ukraine:
Trump demanded a public investigation into the Democratic Party and the Bidens, in return for
military aid and a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House.
There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the
gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to
restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that
benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that
Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would
not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the
Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one
of his top aides.
There were further indications of support for the impeachment drive -- or at least for the
national-security officials who have come forward to testify against Trump -- from the top
levels of the military and diplomatic establishment. General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired
only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday
defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling
him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary
contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat."
And in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected
to confirm his nomination to be US Ambassador to Russia, Deputy Secretary of State John
Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was
the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer
her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on
the Bidens.
Asked whether it was "ever appropriate for the president to use his office to solicit
investigations into his domestic political opponents," Sullivan replied, "I don't think that
would be in accord with our values." Given Trump's frequent declarations that his telephone
conversation with Zelensky, in which he made just such a request, was "perfect," Sullivan's
statement is extraordinary. It suggests an unprecedented degree of open revolt against Trump
within the national-security establishment.
The real motives of the impeachment drive were spelled out with particular frenzy in a
column by neoconservative Max Boot, who, like Bolton, has been an all-out supporter of US
military aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and throughout the world. Writing in the
Washington Post , under the headline, "More Trump gifts to Russia," he declares,
"Trump is bringing the United States to its knees and making Russia great again."
Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department
axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against
pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in
Syria.
He writes: "Russian soldiers are entering U.S. bases and taking up the joint patrolling
duties with the Turkish army that U.S. troops had been performing until recently. The fate of
Syria was settled not in Washington but in Sochi -- Putin's favorite Black Sea resort. Trump
has given Russia what it has sought for decades: a leading role in the Middle East. This is the
biggest geopolitical shift in the region since 1972 when Egypt's Anwar Sadat expelled Soviet
advisers and aligned with Washington."
Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step
towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US
role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in
Washington.
Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate. The 'whistleblower complaint' is the new 'dirty
dossier'. The 'former' MI6 spy Christopher Steele wrote the dossier.
The whole impeachment
show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake. The Democrats have chosen the wrong
issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of ballast
The choice of a Trump phonecall with the Ukrainian president as the item to hang the
impeachment on is especially dumb. Trump's call was less incriminating than Biden's pressure
on the Ukrainian president
to help his son's paymaster . It is also a mistake to let the Chair of the House
Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff run the impeachment
process . Schiff already
flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that
two members
of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security
Council, had advised him.
The process will create a lot of collateral damage. It will hurt a number people involved
in it, but it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. It will not end with impeachment. I
believe, like
Noam Chomsky , that it will, in the end, even help Trump
... the Democrats try to defeat him with theater. But Trump is a much better showman than
Schiff or any other Democrat. It almost looks as if they want Trump to win.
...To me, the question remains if the Dems are a totally lost party or if this process
will be the spark that refocus them with new leadership and a set of potential president/vice
that is some Bernie/Tulsi/Warren combo which could beat Trump, IMO.
..The DS must know that Biden or Warren are not going to beat Trump, so may have decided
they can keep Trumpy corralled by an endless stream of MIC Swampers
Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was
reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the
Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now that the identity of the "whistleblower" is apparently known, all the
Republicans under Devin Nunes have to do is sub-poena the "whistleblower" to attend.
The House Intelligence Committee will hold public hearings, and Republicans will need
approval from at least some Democrats to call witnesses or to otherwise issue subpoenas
.
But the Democrats will look like wankers and will eventually cave, because the Senate is
in no way obligated by the impeachment reolution. Schiff is so deranged about getting Trump
that he'll fail and Trump will win in 2020. Just like 2016 was Hillary Clinton's
responsibility, 2020 will be Adam Sciff's.
Zerohedge just posted, citing the Washington Examiner, that CiaraMeLLA refuses to testify
after it became known he worked with Biden et al and was coached by Schiffty's staff. A
little cold feet, must be the snowl. And also, his Attorneys came down with rat's flu.
How they could otherwise effectively bluntly steal all what has been planned to steal ( at
whatever cost for others...)before the dollar falls, as it is currently happening in
Syria?
Plus, the phone call issue, IMO, fails to meet the criteria for impeachment as there's no
crime involved. As I've written many times, there are plenty of valid reasons--crimes--that
Trump ought to be impeached over but the Ds will never employ them just as Pelosi refused to
do her duty and allow impeachment charges to be filed against Bush/Cheney.
IMO, Gabbard and Sanders must seriously consider forming a 3rd Party to mount a challenge
to Trump as the D-Party's about to shoot itself in the head--and hopefully it won't miss.
What it is is the Corporate party will still take Trump over Sanders or Tulsi. And why is
that? That is because either one of those two, having won, will promptly defenestrate all of
the current crop of federal-trough-feeders into the street, and take over, just as Clinton
did back in the day.
Ever since it because clear that Obama did not intend to use the mandate we gave him, and
he dis-assembled the machine he built to win, I have never given the DNC a thought. Never
again.
There is no doubt that Impeachmentgate is the Act 2 of Russiagate. There is so much
continuity between the two acts, most of all that neither are/were wise. It reminds me so
much of US military interventions - no good endgame, withdraw like a dog with a tail between
your legs from a war that was lost even before it was started (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc).
Naturally, those wars were not started to win then to get rich. Now here comes a genius who
wants to actually steal the oil or something else of value instead of spending huge amounts
of money just to make the world a better place. Much better, isn't it? What a novel idea, the
wars were never before about stealing other people's property (cattle and women)!
But, one has to put himself into the shoes of the Democrats to understand why Russiagate
must continue. Firstly, as b says they got nothing, no policy, no differentiation, no
believable claim that they could do something better than the incumbent, no new spring of
hope faux agent of change like Obama. There is a chance of real change in Gabbard, but who is
crazy enough to subject the entrenched interests to real change. Secondly, they have this
spiffy Main Sewerage Media machine under their control, which can churn out an endless stream
of turds (Vindman, Ciaramella) wrapped into golden foil to pass them as voter candy. Remember
that genocide-personified Democrat Madeleine Albright: "What's the point of having this
superb military if you can't use it?" No machine runs on empty, they need to feed some crap
into the propaganda machine.
So what are the Democrats to do? B, it is easy to say Impeachmentgate is bad
electioneering, but do suggest any better approach that could return this most criminal gang
on the planet back into power and safety from prosecution.
Societies all over the world have been turned upside down, creating untold suffering en
mass by such bogus half cooked rabbit in the hat tricks....only to find its way back to the
US and sicken the American society.....Poor Americans, like poor civilians elsewhere have no
idea where its all coming from and are instead at each others' throats.
" It nearly looks as if they want Trump to win."
Nearly? it have seemed like they wanted him to win since 2016, nearly is a understatement
imho...
This bread and circus for the plebs is getting boring,, the utter stupidity in their
manuscripts and the gaggle of vassals and terrorists they support is the lowest iq and
degenerate nihilists in the world.
The Benedict option seems like the only option left, unless one wants to let the "modern
world" drive one insane or into isolation..
Careful b. You don't want to give more leash to those who think the democrats are in cahoots
with potus. As I have said before, trump has done more than any other president in memory to
pull the wool from the independent voter's eye. They will no longer vote along partisan
lines, knowing there is so little daylight, or in any case the stuff that actually matters,
between the parties.
It is a brand new world thanks to trump. Regardless of any temporary rethug policy he
manages to employ.
The bed has been thoroughly shat. No gluing humpty-dumpty, and no writing schiff's
ship.
The DNC is now, effectively, fighting on two fronts: the GOP from the Right and the
developmentists/progressives from the Left.
In this scenario, it may well be the case it will choose to use a botched impeachment to
reelect Trump and thus implode the Leftist opposition inside their own party. It isn't a
perfect strategy, but at least it buys them time (four years, to be precise).
The GOP and the Dems may have their differences, but they are both from the Capitalist
Party. The divergence is not that the USA shouldn't be an empire anymore, but how the empire
should be managed.
You're headline is perfect b. This is Theater. These are the Vagina Monologues of the Beltway
Bourgeoise.
It is the US political process that is being impeached, so to speak, to prepare us for
it's eventual dismantling.
Living in the day to day one might think this circus matters. It does not. All
actors/public figures work for hidden interests, who in turn take orders from a centralized
authority.
Frankly it is foolish and childish to pretend otherwise.
My sole exposure to straight up Octopus Media is listening to the radio, which I sometimes
turn on during long drives. Sometimes. Even then mostly I turn it off, in anger. I dislike
being taken for a fool. I have no cable, don't watch garbage movies and no longer bother
glancing at newspaper headlines as I'm passing by. There's just no point. To the best of my
ability I am self directed in my thinking.
We should all do the same. When we surf we are partly self directed, that's true, but also
here we must acknowledge EVERYTHING available is Octopus Media and Intelligence controlled,
by one means or another.
thanks b... the dems could question trumps comment that the usa plans to steal syrias oil...
that would be an actual conversation of merit here.. instead the dems have the gun pointed at
their foot and are going to hit it again with this...
@10 karlof1... there is no way sanders would consider a 3rd party run.. the guy is not
capable of independent action like that..he is another cog in the wheel happy to go along
with all the same bullshite..
the whole usa system of bullshite has to come down... trump is helping as i see it.. the
dems are too!! this is really an impeachment case against this joke called freedom and
democracy that the usa likes to cloak itself in..
We can speculate all we want about which strings the Deep State is pulling or which
dimensional chess it is playing, the bottom line is that I cannot vote either for the
"Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet" Dim Party or the
"Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet" Repug Party. I'll therefore, as usual and most
likely, vote for the Green Party.
I think Bashar Al-Assad gave in the last interview the best description of the US system I
have heard so far...in a nutshell...
"American politics are no different from Hollywood; it relies on the imagination. Not even
science fiction, just mere imagination. So, you can take American politics and see it in
Hollywood or else you can bring Hollywood and see it through American politics."
Yes, what were they thinking... it really is more of the same.
That said, the national Dem party leadership is getting some minor things out of it, at
the cost of I think +1% to Trump in the 2020 general election:
* Biden got a small boost. He was going to get attacked on his and Hunter's Ukraine
business anyway, they defended him. It was also a big show of support for him by the entire
House Democrat side - in the face of surprisingly weak fundraising.
* Completely drowned out TV/press coverage of everything else to do with the primary.
* This ends the chances of all the minor candidates except Buttigieg (but i bet some will
stick around anyway in hopes of a VP nomination or cabinet position)
* Public support for impeachment gained something like 8-10%, now evenly split. But this
statistic means little because it is Senate Republicans who decide, and they would be
committing political suicide given Trump's 85%+ support among Republican voters.
Besides that, it is the undecided / apathetic voters who are the real audience, and they
seem to remain unswayed. The swing-state polling is not looking great either, with FL, AZ,
and perhaps WI viewing impeachment less favorably than the national average. PA on the other
hand is neutral to very faintly supportive of impeachment.
Also with Harris looking finished, Buttigieg picked up another 10% of the "moderate" Dems
in polls. Biden will want this group of voters, so something will be happening there sooner
or later.
The House intel committee investigation will continue, maybe indefinitely. With the star
witness backing out, it does seem that they got taken for a ride (once again) by the national
security guys. And Trump's outsider status, a positive in today's electorate, is again
established.
The gateway pundit is asking if Ciaramella is the "Charlie" referred to in Strzok and Page
emails. This Charlie was the FBI appointed spy in the whitehouse. Oops, Ciaramella and his
FBI handlers might have a big problem.
At our stage of political disintegration the interesting question is what comes after Trump-
a return to business as usual? doubt it that Rubicon has been crossed,
If I understand this year's DNC rule changes, Biden needs to either keep Sanders below 15%
- the minimum threshold to get voting delegates at the convention - which is unlikely, or he
needs another "moderate" such as Buttigieg to get above 15% and then endorse him, or he needs
enough of a lead to beat Warren and Sanders together.
Otherwise, only delegates for Sanders, Warren, and Biden vote. Sanders can endorse Warren,
and their combined delegates would be enough to give Warren the nomination on the first round
of the convention (before superdelegates). To complete the nightmare scenario for the DNC,
Sanders would get to name his price for supporting Warren.
So perhaps they are hoping to scrape up all the random-other-moderate Dems, give their
supporters to Buttigieg to get him over 15%, and have him endorse Buden in the end. That
would be a semi plausible scenario...
One legitimate issue is if the government should investigate political opponents
. There is a potential for abuse in two directions: impure political tools of y
ou do it, impunity to established powers if you do not.
For example, if you desire to investigate bankers as a part of your political pr
ogram, you can bet that more than a random sample of bankers will join the ranks
of your political opponents.
Concerning the politics of the issue, a surprising percentage of Americans trust
s FBI and CIA, and centrist Democrats would like to ride on the wave of this sen
timent. But "interagency consensus" is not as popular, however illogical it may
seem. Chances are, champions of interagency consensus may gain the support of
the majority of the Democratic "base", but they will get slim picking in other d
emographics.
ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT
The identity of the whistleblower was publicly known already on October 10, 2019. Another
important detail about Eric Ciaramella and his activities was revealed at the same time.
John Solomon published an article in The Hill on April 25, 2019 on the origins of
Ukrainegate :
That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the
now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama
administration's intervention.
The White House visitor records available online reveal that the meeting in the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building was hosted by Eric Ciaramella, the CIA "whistleblower".
BREAKING: Alleged #Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella ran the meeting that @jsolomonReports
was "one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia
collusion narrative".
@AndriyUkraineTe please confirm.
United States Attorney General William Barr is investigating the origins of the
Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The New York Times reports that this investigation
has turned into a criminal investigation. Would this make Eric Ciaramella a suspect?
Pardon me for asking, but how many people died in the course of events both before and
after the coup in Ukraine? Biden abetted everyone of those deaths, as did Obama, Nuland, and
a host of other Outlaw US Empire pukes. Trump was correct in asking about Biden's level of
involvement with the Ukraine government that he helped install through his help in murdering
people. Trump hasn't used such terms yet, but there're lots of Trump folk out there plus a
few like me that don't have any reason not to review the truth about the huge crime that
Biden was responsible for as Veep. And of course, that's not the only Capital Crime that
Biden abetted as Obama's Veep.
I for one am sick and tired of not calling a spade a spade when it comes to accusing
Outlaw US Empire pukes correctly of the crimes they've committed. And as I've written often,
Trump's guilty too, but what they're trying to pin on him doesn't meet the impeachment
threshold required by the constitution. Hell, he's bent on stealing Syrian oil and trying to
illegally profit from its sale, and if that's not an impeachable crime I don't know what
is!
Occasionally on Twitter you run into a great photo of two terrorists pointing their
pistols at each others head. That's what I see happening between the D and R Parties. It
would be a boon to the nation and world if they'd pull their triggers at the same time and
die.
this political theater by the democratic Elites about impeachment will not come to a good
end. I can see it going much as B and others are imagining. A few republican senators might
abstain, or even perhaps vote against Trump, but he'll actually come out better than Clinton
in the final Senate vote.
The millionaires and billionaires that now run the democratic party will never allow a
Sanders or Gabbard to be candidate - so it's going to be either biden or Warren, I strongly
suspect.
even worse, these wankers in the democratic party and their billionaire backers (some
exceptions of course) don't even realize, they haven't the faintest idea really, nor do they
perhaps even care, how close the human race is to being totally wiped out this century by
climate catastrophe (leave alone the possibility of some nuclear war in the next 80 years).
Hell you can't even get much enthusiasm among the american people/voters because they've been
so propagandized and brainwashed by the right wing crackpots who control the US/world economy
and the media Narrative, and who believe that this capitalist-consumerist orgy of a show will
go on forever.
it's not looking good, no matter who wins at the impeachment barker circus, or in the 2020
election....
Did a quick search and found it only passed the House and now moves to the Senate. It's
one of those funding acts for Title VIII that needs to be reauthorized to stay alive, and
that's what happened. Joyce at his Twitter didn't mention Gabbard as co-sponsor, taking full
credit for its passing.
Meanwhile, The Flynn Trial continues to
produce details of entrapment, manipulation, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct. One
commenter is surprised Trump's DoJ continues to pursue the case when it ought to be obvious
why: He spilled the beans about the formation of Daesh and its use by the Outlaw US Empire,
and IMO Barr didn't like that.
engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost
Good info, and as a sidelight...I'll play "language maven" on the quotes you use, put some
fire in "give Russia collusion narrative." Improve on what they said.
Perhaps instead we should use the current get-Trump language.
"Obama sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2016 presidential
election."
"Ukraine was given military gear in exchange for dirt on Obama's election opponent"
etc
i dunno; i think with the addition of federal prosecutor john durham,, the investigation's
expanding, and just might grow some legs, and grow barr an actual spine.
If it weren't the phone call to Ukraine, it would be some other petty reason to impeach
Trump. Primarily there was the move, led by CNN, right after Trump unexpectedly won the 2016
election, to hurt Trump's inauguration in January 2017. The "Impeach Trump" movement included
the Steele Dossier first showcased on CNN Jan 10, 2017 and also magazine articles such as
Vanity Fair's "Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump" on Dec 15, 2016
here
, both prior to Trump's inauguration. And it's gone on since then, culminating in this
political side show, as if "digging up dirt" on one's political appointment originated with
Trump. They couldn't come up with anything really important, any really good reason to dump
the elected president, to negate his election, sort of like with Nixon and Clinton.
"... And this process or digging out neoliberal Dems and CIA machinations already started: Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security Council, had advised him. ..."
"... Now this process is starting to create more and more collateral damage for neoliberal Dems, as Schiff will not be able to fully block republican efforts to bring witnesses. But it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. And it will not end with impeachment. ..."
Orange Watch@45 is a little confusing. If I prefer "conduct unbecoming a president"
as an impeachment charge I'm not restricting impeachment to violations of criminal statutes.
Hatemongering is not a criminal offense, but a political and moral one.
I think the real objection is that I view insinuations Trump is treasonous as exactly the
same rotten politics as insinuations Clinton was treasonous.
Or that it is exactly as foolish to freak out over Russian interference in the 2016 election
as Ukrainian interference, or vice versa, the only distinction being one is a Democratic
bugbear and the other is a Republican.
likbez 11.03.19 at 4:15 am (no link)
steven t johnson 11.01.19 at 3:27 pm
likbez@42 doesn't realize that the legal course was for the US Justice Department to
draw up a list of requirements of the sort specified in the treaty. The US embassy in Kyiv
would then relay the request to their counterparts. If and only if the request was denied
would there be any occasion for presidents to discuss the matter, and only then would such
discussion be legally mandated. What Trump did was press Zelensky for a public announcement
of an investigate, or worse, to rig and investigation.
I respectfully disagree. Road to hell is always paved with good intentions. How you can do
it, if you know that Kiev embassy is controlled by Obama/Brennan plotters including the
ambassador, and the CIA controls Ukrainian security services? Speaking directly to president
about Crowdstike was the only way to move this investigation forward. Inclusion of Biden was
a huge, suicidal political blunder, for which Trump now is paying a price. "Full of Schiff"
commenters here emphasize it, and conveniently forget to mention Crowdstrike part and
"Manafort dirt" part of the "Ukrainian influence on 2016 elections" story. Which are far more
important.
It looks to me as if somebody within Trump administration wanted to sabotage the whole
thing. He should have been staying strictly on Russiagate investigation topic (which is a
criminal investigation now, if I understand the situation correctly), but being Trump he
can't (Rick Perry was probably a contributing factor in this stupidity). As the result it
served as a pretext for the counterattack on his Russiagate origins investigation by
Obama/Brennan faction.
But there is a silver lining in any dark cloud. If Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate then
the 'whistleblower complaint' is surprisingly similar to the 'former' MI6 spy Christopher
Steele 'dirty dossier'. It has a lot of problems. First of all Obama/Brennan faction have
chosen the issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of skeletons in the closet. The
choice of a CIA officer as a whistleblower and his complaint as the cornerstone of the
impeachment was especially dumb: the word "CIA" is a dog whistle for Trump electorate. It
also puts Brennan and Obama in undesirable spotlight.
And this process or digging out neoliberal Dems and CIA machinations already started:
Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was
reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the
Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now this process is starting to create more and more collateral damage for neoliberal
Dems, as Schiff will not be able to fully block republican efforts to bring witnesses. But it
will not hurt Trump with his electorate. And it will not end with impeachment.
I believe, like Noam Chomsky, that it will, in the end, help Trump and might put Warren
(forget about Biden) in disadvantage: the noise for impeachment will deafen all her proposals
and will convert 2020 election into another show. And Trump is much better showmen then
she.
That is the point that "full of Schiff" commenters, in their excitement about the new
opportunity to unseat Trump, are unable to comprehend.
"... If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous ..."
"... It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them were one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even book-smart, who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have "credentials" but have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious statesmanship. They simply do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the whole machine of the US "humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative with latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense and objective views which exist in between are pure coincidence which are there despite a totally corrupt educational system in the US when dealing with humanities. ..."
"... That is why, US elites having "analysts" like Ciaramella will not get out of this rut because the only thing they can reproduce are such specimens as this guy perfectly honed for one thing--to exist in the self-contained system of corruption, treachery, snitching, dirty intrigue and delusion, also known as American political system. ..."
Whistle While You Work... In the CIA or in the White House. Evidently, if to believe
media frenzy, the name of the so called "whistle blower" against Trump is 33 years old Eric
Ciaramella, whose profile nails him directly as a snitch to the Brennan's cabal of putchists
who continue to rape Constitution and eradicate the last remnants of the Republic, turning it
into the Third World shithole mafia state.
OK, that clarifies it somewhat but this is not what is truly interesting about
this CIA "analyst" who, at this moment still may or may not be a blowjo...pardon me,
whistle-blower for Adan Schiff and his collection of treasonous operatives. No. The thing which
catches one's attention who have at least some serious military or intelligence background is
this:
Ciaramella grew up in Prospect, Connecticut, as one of three children. He spent time
attending Woodland Regional High School in Beacon Falls, Connecticut, and then graduated from
Chase Collegiate School, in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2004, according to the prep school's
alumni magazine. After high school, Ciaramella attended Yale University, graduating in 2008
as a Russian and East European studies major. In 2007, he was awarded a grant by the Yale Macmillan
Center for European Union Studies to "research on the perceptions of the EU among rural
Italian residents." While at Yale, Ciaramella, who speaks Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic, led
a protest over the departure of an Arabic department professor, according
to the Yale Daily News. The student newspaper wrote, "Students convened outside Silliman
at 9 a.m., all dressed in white to symbolize their future goal of bridging the gap between
the United States and the Middle East through the use of the Arab language, said Eric
Ciaramella '08, one of the students who led the protest." Ciaramella also studied at Harvard
University, focusing on Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, according to the school's
website. He
received a grant in 2009 for research on "Language in the Public Sphere in Three
Post-Soviet Capital Cities," Tbilisi, Georgia; Yerevan, Armenia; Baku, Azerbaijan. Ciaramella
was additionally a corresponding author for Harvard's Department of Linguistics and wrote a
paper in 2015 titled, "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun."Ciaramella worked at
the World Bank after college,
according to a 2011 publication by the international financial institution. In the World
Bank report, "Russia: Reshaping Economic Geography," published in June 2011, Ciaramella is
listed in the acknowledgments for making "important contributions" to the research. On a
now-deleted Linkedin profile, he described himself as being a "Consultant, Poverty
Reduction/Economic Management" at World Bank.
Ah, that's warmer. And it is an Exhibit A of a main reason why the United States
finds itself where it is today and why current American so called "elites" cannot find their
own ass with both hands in a brightly lit room. One is bound to struggle with own ass finding
when having background such as Ciaramella's, and his background with slight deviations within
narrow confines of humanities education, from Law to Political "Science", is a background of
the overwhelming majority of people who "shape" US policies both domestically and abroad.
Ciaramella is a classic product of the US Ivy League degree mills for good ol' boys and girls
and, as is expected, possesses zero required instruments for serious foreign policy analysis in
which power factor is at the center of an issue and it is beyond, wrong as they are, so called
modelling and methodology used in the US for studying this issue--a body of absolutely
overwhelming evidence of utter and humiliating, I may add, failure of American institutions
dealing with country studies. No bigger evidence exists than a wasteland of Russia Studies
field in the United States.
If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the
Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is
just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid
can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying
language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous.
It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so
called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them were
one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is
deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even book-smart,
who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have "credentials" but
have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious statesmanship. They simply
do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the whole machine of the US
"humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of
the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on
the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative with
latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense and objective views which exist in
between are pure coincidence which are there despite a totally corrupt educational system in
the US when dealing with humanities.
That is why, US elites having "analysts" like Ciaramella will not get out of this rut because
the only thing they can reproduce are such specimens as this guy perfectly honed for one
thing--to exist in the self-contained system of corruption, treachery, snitching, dirty
intrigue and delusion, also known as American political system. In this case, forestalling any
undeniably upcoming claims from these types of guys about their "honor", duty to a country or
"democracy" it should be made patently clear that they have none, other than personal and
narrow political interests and ambitions attached to a destruction of America which, at least
nominally, was so far known as a land of laws and of the Constitution and which it is no more.
House Republicans on Thursday said that testimony from the State Department's former envoy to Ukraine, sought by
House Democrats with regards to their impeachment inquiry, won't advance the drive to impeach President Donald Trump.
Emerging from the day-long deposition, New York Republican
Lee Zeldin
said that former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker's private Thursday testimony, "blows a hole in the
argument" presented by Democrats that Trump asked the president of Ukraine for a quid pro quo.
Volker on Thursday spent hours testifying with congressional investigators who are seeking to discover if he
played any role in Trump's efforts to obtain from Ukrainian officials information on Hunter Biden, the son of 2020
presidential hopeful
Joseph R. Biden Jr.
House Intelligence Chairman
Adam B. Schiff
briefly addressed reporters during the testimony, charging that Trump encouraging a foreign nation
to investigate his political rival was a "fundamental breach of the president's oath of office."
"It endangers our elections, it endangers our national security, it ought to be condemned by every member of this
body, Democrats and Republicans alike," Schiff said.
While Volker testified, Ohio Republican
Michael R. Turner
, an Intelligence Committee member, released a statement saying he does "not believe that
Volker's testimony advanced Schiff's impeachment agenda."
Zeldin urged the relevant congressional committees to make public a transcript of Volker's deposition, along with
text messages Volker sent to Ukrainian officials, which have become a source of intrigue in the fledgling impeachment
push.
About two-and-a-half hours into Volker's deposition,
Jim Jordan
, an Ohio Republican and founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, emerged and told reporters that
Schiff wanted to limit certain members from questioning Volker and that the California Democrat had barred State
Department lawyers from participating in the closed briefing.
Want insight more often?
Get Roll Call in your inbox
"If this is how Mr. Schiff is going to conduct these types of interviews in the future," Jordan said, "that's a
concern."
Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
has drawn the ire of congressional Democrats this week for rejecting a subpoena and rebuffing
congressional requests to question five current and former State Department officials to testify in the impeachment
inquiry.
Trump: House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff should "resign from office"
https://g.jwpsrv.com/g/gcid-0.1.2.html?notrack
Press shift question mark to access a list of
keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Play/Pause
SPACE
Increase Volume
↑
Decrease Volume
↓
Seek Forward
→
Seek Backward
←
Captions On/Off
c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen
f
Mute/Unmute
m
Seek %
0-9
Off
Automated Captions - en-US
facebook
twitter
Email
Link
Copied
Live
00:00
02:34
02:34
Jordan praised Volker, calling him "impressive." Turner called Volker "an incredible diplomat," in his statement.
Volker resigned from his position as special envoy less than a week ago after his name appeared in a whistleblower
complaint alleging that Volker was coordinating with Ukrainian officials on how to handle requests from Trump's
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. That whistleblower report is central in justifying House Democrats' impeachment
inquiry.
Turner said he doesn't believe Volker would have done anything untoward during his State Department service.
"It is my strong belief that Volker would not have been involved in nor permitted anything inappropriate, let
alone illegal, in his service to our country," Turner said. "Today he continued his legacy of integrity under
questioning from Schiff's staff."
Orange Watch@45 is a little confusing. If I prefer "conduct unbecoming a president"
as an impeachment charge I'm not restricting impeachment to violations of criminal statutes.
Hatemongering is not a criminal offense, but a political and moral one. I think the real
objection is that I view insinuations Trump is treasonous as exactly the same rotten politics
as insinuations Clinton was treasonous. Or that it is exactly as foolish to freak out over
Russian interference in the 2016 election as Ukrainian interference, or vice versa, the only
distinction being one is a Democratic bugbear and the other is a Republican.
... ... ...
likbez@42 doesn't realize that the legal course was for the US Justice Department to draw up
a list of requirements of the sort specified in the treaty.
The US embassy in Kyiv would then relay the request to their counterparts. If and only if
the request was denied would there be any occasion for presidents to discuss the matter, and
only then would such discussion be legally mandated.
What Trump did was press Zelensky for a public announcement of an investigate, or worse, to
rig and investigation. It is the equivalent of the CIA planting a libel in the foreign press so
that it can be "reported" as legitimate news in the US.
There are legal and ethical issues with the President directing underlings to begin
investigations of his opponents in the domestic sphere. They don't disappear abroad. I don't
think there's any doubt, except for Trump's lawyers, the call was a campaign violation.
Perry is another neocon in Trump administration and it looks like he pushed Trump under the train.
Notable quotes:
"... In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets." ..."
"... Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs. While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies involved in the project. ..."
Congressional Democrats want to know more about Rick Perry's travels to Ukraine and
conversations with officials there, signaling that the mild-mannered energy secretary won't
escape the intense of heat of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
In a memo released Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.)
said he plans to issue a subpoena for White House documents by the end of the week centered on
Trump's requests to the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into one of his chief
political rivals, former vice president Joe Biden.
Among the records his committee is seeking are any related to Perry's attendance of
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration on May 20 as well as a White House
meeting Perry attended three days later.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
similarly sent a letter to Perry on Tuesday asking him what instructions Trump gave him when
the Cabinet official flew to Ukraine in May, as well as who asked Perry to go there in the
first place. And three House committees on Monday issued a sweeping subpoena to Trump's
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in part seeking documents related to Perry.
The multiple congressional inquiries have put a spotlight on Perry, who has distinguished
himself during his time in the job for avoiding controversy. Though the energy secretary is not
accused of wrongdoing and has not been directly subpoenaed, Perry and his Energy Department
spent Wednesday reassuring congressional Democrats they will cooperate with the impeachment
probe.
"We're going to work with Congress and answer all their questions," Perry told reporters
Wednesday at a departmental event in Chicago on artificial intelligence.
Leading a department he once called to eliminate when running for president in 2012, Perry
has kept his head down and avoided the scandals that embroiled some of Trump's original energy
and environmental policy team members, including former Environmental Protection Agency chief
Scott Pruitt and ex-Interior Department secretary Ryan Zinke, who were both ousted amid ethics
investigations. Perry's easygoing demeanor has let him develop productive relationships with
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
"Regardless of subject, the Department is always willing to work with Congress in response
to requests that follow proper procedures," Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes wrote
by email.
An explosive whistleblower complaint from an anonymous U.S. intelligence official alleged
Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until he saw how the new Ukrainian leader "chose to
act" in office. In May, Perry led the American delegation to Zelensky's inauguration in lieu of
Vice President Pence after Pence canceled his planned trip, according to the complaint.
Two months later, on July 25, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky in a phone call to investigate
Biden, offering to enlist Attorney General William P. Barr in that effort while dangling the
possibility of a White House meeting, according to a rough transcript of the call the White
House released.
On Wednesday, Perry declined to say to reporters whether he was on the July phone call. He
joked that he was asked to fill in for Pence in Ukraine in May because he is "just such a darn
good Cabinet member."
As energy secretary, Perry has regularly traveled to Eastern Europe to promote the sale of
U.S.-produced natural gas and coal. "I've had the opportunity to go into so many different
countries to represent the United States, our energy opportunities," Perry said Wednesday.
"Ukraine is one of those."
It is not unusual for energy secretaries to have a hand in foreign policy. Ernest Moniz, a
nuclear physicist who served as President Barack Obama's energy secretary, played a central
role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.
Energy secretaries "do get involved from time to time on diplomatic issues," said Susan
Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Energy Department under Obama.
Curbing Eastern and Central European countries' dependence on Russia for electricity and
heating fuel was "very early on a priority" for the Trump administration, according to George
David Banks, a former Trump White House energy policy adviser. Given Perry's happy-go-lucky
charm -- and the fact that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was recused from dealing
with several energy issues because of his previous job as ExxonMobil's chief executive -- it
made sense for Perry to work on Ukraine, Banks said.
"He's a natural-born diplomat," Banks said.
Ukraine, rich with its own natural gas reserves, does not import gas from the United States,
unlike some Eastern European nations such as Poland and Lithuania. But it does take in and burn
American coal -- about 4.8 million tons of it in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Most of that U.S.-to-Ukraine-bound coal is of a special grade often used in
manufacturing steel, a major industry in Ukraine. The United States is only one of a few
coal-exporting countries that has that type of coal.
The country has its own coal reserves, but much of them are located in contested territory
in eastern Ukraine. Facing costly imports from Russia, Ukraine has begun getting coal supplies
from the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, and others places in recent years, according to
EIA.
In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of
America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets."
Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed
gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the
United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs.
While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies
involved in the project.
While true whistleblowers pay the heavy price for their courage, neoliberal Democrats and corrupt to the core neoliberal MSM lionize
a CIA leaker because he justifies their impeachment crusade.
Why couldn't this CIA asset not simply report through regular channels? He wasn't blowing whistle on the CIA itself so no risk there.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole impeachment charade, and that's what it is, rests on the paradoxical and ahistorical assertions that 1) the president's phone call with Ukraine's leader is Trump's worst crime, and 2) the "liberal" press has always supported government whistleblowers. Both are absurd claims, though fitting for this partisan political moment. ..."
"... The inconvenient reality is that Trump and both his predecessors have committed far worse crimes against the Constitution by engaging in illegal wars. ..."
"... The only reason the Left -- which historically has distrusted U.S. intelligence activities -- has canonized this anonymous CIA whistleblower is that he or she, and the entire clandestine apparatus, has implicated Trump, the reflexive archenemy of the liberal elite. Trump's actual crime, contrary to the prevailing yarn, was not his overriding of Congress on war policies (which he largely copied from Obama and Bush II), but that he dared to attack a longtime Democratic insider: Joe Biden. ..."
"... Notice that the Democratic leadership in Congress has declined to investigate the fact that this president, and others before him, overrode congressional authority to wage all sorts of military operations outside the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, including the current assistance we are giving Saudi Arabia in its attacks on Yemen. ..."
"... President Obama, for example, dropped 26,171 bombs on at least seven countries using an AUMF that has been extended well beyond those who attacked America on 9/11. He even executed American citizens overseas without due process . ..."
"... Meanwhile, Trump abets legitimate war crimes in Yemen to the tune of 100,000-plus dead -- without evident remorse. But Obama started that war , providing U.S. aerial refueling, targeting support, and deadly munitions to the Saudis back in 2015. So the Democratic leadership stands down on the issue of Yemen, not wanting to implicate their hero in the process of impeaching The Donald. ..."
"... Mainstream liberal hypocrisy runs even deeper, unfortunately. I'm just old enough to remember when the Left railed against the CIA, NSA, and spooks in general. ..."
"... Suddenly every Obama- and Bush-era national security staffer and intelligence super-sleuth -- John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, etc. -- was regularly appearing on CNN and MSNBC to attack Trump and pine for the status quo of U.S. military hyper-interventionism. ..."
"... Even the language is instructive. They aren't "leakers," "traitors," or "criminals," but whistleblowers , surging with moral courage and exposing ostensibly unthinkable presidential wrongdoing. That's funny: where were these folks when other, far more profound whistleblowers uncovered criminality during the Bush and Obama years? Either crickets or pejorative attacks were all they proffered back then. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Obama utilized the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The liberal press and most Democratic legislators barely made a peep. Barack was their guy , one of their own -- the "leakers" must have been in the wrong, enemies, so to speak, of the people. ..."
"... So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment down our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state." ..."
"... Trump's crime is he's an outsider and the CIA did not expect him to win. His very existence is a threat to them. ..."
"... Can he clean up the mess? I doubt it. Imagine what would happen, the screams and agony, were he to eliminate all government secrecy. Imagine what the CIA would claim if the Black Budget became transparent. If Trump tried to eliminate the CIA it would simply reconstitute and shape-shift within other agencies or outside government. ..."
Few see the irony in the corporate mainstream media's love affair with the anonymous whistleblower in President Trump's alleged
Ukraine-gate affair. Yet everyone should. Few see the irony in the corporate mainstream media's love affair with the anonymous whistleblower
in President Trump's alleged Ukraine-gate affair. Yet everyone should.
The whole impeachment charade, and that's what it is, rests on the paradoxical and ahistorical assertions that 1) the president's
phone call with Ukraine's leader is Trump's worst crime, and 2) the "liberal" press has always supported government whistleblowers.
Both are absurd claims, though fitting for this partisan political moment.
The inconvenient reality is that Trump and
both his predecessors have committed
far worse crimes against the Constitution by engaging in illegal wars. Certainly this is more serious than the shady Ukraine/Biden
incident. And the mainstream media has a rather poor track record when it comes to whistleblowers, often demonizing leakers who expose
nefarious government actions. The only reason the Left -- which historically has distrusted U.S. intelligence activities -- has
canonized this anonymous CIA whistleblower is that he or she, and the entire clandestine apparatus, has implicated Trump, the reflexive
archenemy of the liberal elite. Trump's actual crime, contrary to the prevailing yarn, was not his overriding of Congress
on war policies (which he largely copied from Obama and Bush II), but that he dared to attack a longtime Democratic insider: Joe
Biden.
Sure, Trump's apparent threat to use aid as a cudgel to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden, and his son Hunter,
is a serious matter. Far be it for me, or anyone else, to dispute that. Whether that meets the threshold for impeachment is debatable
-- and by the way, Hunter Biden's $50,000 a month, unqualified position on a foreign corporate gas company's board while his father
was vice president doesn't exactly pass the smell test either. But I'll table that for now.
Notice that the Democratic leadership in Congress has declined to investigate the fact that this president, and others before
him, overrode congressional authority to wage all sorts of military operations outside the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF) passed after 9/11, including the current assistance we are giving Saudi Arabia in its attacks on Yemen.
President Obama, for example,
dropped
26,171 bombs on at least seven countries using an AUMF that has been extended well beyond those who attacked America on 9/11.
He even executed American citizens overseas
without
due process .
Meanwhile, Trump abets legitimate
war crimes in Yemen to the
tune of 100,000-plus dead -- without evident remorse. But Obama
started that war , providing
U.S. aerial refueling, targeting support, and deadly munitions to the Saudis back in 2015. So the Democratic leadership stands down
on the issue of Yemen, not wanting to implicate their hero in the process of impeaching The Donald.
Mainstream liberal hypocrisy runs even deeper, unfortunately. I'm just old enough to remember when the Left railed against
the CIA, NSA, and spooks in general. And
rightfully so . That, however,
was before Mr. Trump shocked coastal elites and got himself elected president of their America. It was impressive watching
media and Democratic insiders immediately turn on a dime.
Suddenly every Obama- and Bush-era national security staffer and intelligence super-sleuth -- John Brennan, James Clapper,
Michael Hayden, etc. -- was regularly appearing on CNN and MSNBC to attack Trump and pine for the status quo of U.S. military hyper-interventionism.
It was as though all their sins -- mass surveillance, drone assassination, illegal rendition, torture -- had been collectively
pushed down the memory hole, the entire intel apparatus born again as agents of truth and honor. The whole masquerade was bizarre,
and beyond duplicitous.
The final insult was the recent canonization of the anonymous Ukraine-gate whistleblower(s). Even the language is instructive.
They aren't "leakers," "traitors," or "criminals," but whistleblowers , surging with moral courage and exposing ostensibly
unthinkable presidential wrongdoing. That's funny: where were these folks when other, far more profound whistleblowers uncovered
criminality during the Bush and Obama years? Either crickets or pejorative attacks were all they proffered back then.
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Obama utilized the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to
prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The liberal press and most Democratic legislators barely
made a peep. Barack was their guy , one of their own -- the "leakers" must have been in the wrong, enemies, so to speak, of
the people. So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment
down our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state." Ultimately it will amount to nothing.
Each side remains entrenched.
Either the Dem elites will hand Trump a second term with this impeachment charade, or, maybe just as likely, President Biden will
take the helm. When he does, whistleblowers will revert, once again, to being traitors.
So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment down
our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state."
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major whose writing has appeared in The American Conservative, Harper's, the Los Angeles
Times, The Nation and Tom Dispatch. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history
at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq war,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet
.
The problem with designating this CIA officer a whistleblower, while denigrating the actual whistleblowers as something other,
as criminals, is obvious enough, or should be: in the cases of the latter, they were exposing the crimes of the intel establishment,
and punished for it, the 'protections' of the law notwithstanding; in other words, the intel establishment got its way; in the
case of the former, the intel establishment is getting its way in its campaign to undermine the administration, notwithstanding
Trump's incompetence and corruption, for which he deserves censure, impeachment, whatever.
Heads, they won; tails, we lose.
The problem, in other words, is that we - collectively, as a nation - get to choose only the modality of how our institutions
and norms are degraded, not whether they will be degraded. Pick your poison.
The CIA and the intelligence services operate black budgets. They kill, steal, run drugs, bribe leaders at home as well as
abroad, arrange accidents like the airplane crashes that have killed several Democrats who danced out of tune, have operatives
placed in government including state governments, the courts and Congress. Who owns your favorite candidate? The CIA. Who controls
the media including the New York Times? The CIA. Bribery, threats, blackmail, control files, setups. The chicanery we tolerate
and celebrate in the name of National Security abroad has come home. Secrecy works wonders for control.
Trump's crime is he's an outsider and the CIA did not expect him to win. His very existence is a threat to them.
Can he clean up the mess? I doubt it. Imagine what would happen, the screams and agony, were he to eliminate all government
secrecy. Imagine what the CIA would claim if the Black Budget became transparent. If Trump tried to eliminate the CIA it would
simply reconstitute and shape-shift within other agencies or outside government.
That, however, was before Mr. Trump shocked coastal elites and got himself elected president of their America.
That, for the elitist Left (and Right), is Donald Trump's real and only crime. He got himself elected president of their America.
But to get right to the heart of it, he didn't get himself elected as much as the American people got him elected. This is about
us..all about us..not about him. Any subsequent attacks on him are in fact attacks on the American electorate.
After the DOJ/FBI advanced their defensive efforts
last weekend via the New York Times and NBC, now the CIA/ODNI faction step forth with the
same intents and purposes.
CIA defending journalist Natasha Bertrand has been participating in the multi-year PR effort
which helped frame the CIA/ODNI talking points against President Trump, and she is deployed
again in the latest effort within
Politico . The timing here is predictable.
( Via
Politico ) President Donald Trump's obsession with former CIA director John Brennan could
be on a collision course with an ongoing Justice Department probe as Attorney General Bill
Barr takes a more hands-on approach to examining the intelligence community's actions in
2016.
[ ] Durham's report is likely to land well after the results of an inquiry by the Justice
Department's Inspector General, who is examining the FBI's applications to a secret court in
2016 and 2017 to obtain surveillance warrants on a Trump campaign aide.
[ ] "Is the IG report going to say we made mistakes? Yes," said one of the former
officials. "But it won't say we did so for some nefarious purpose. So the report will be a
dry hole for Trump and his supporters. Which is why [Barr and Durham] have now gone to this
other theory, positing that the CIA was engaged in some rogue operation to overthrow Trump
and therefore feeding the FBI bullshit," he said. "It's complete nonsense."
"Haven't you heard?" said another former FBI official, sarcastically. "Brennan was a
puppet-master and we were just his puppets."
Unfortunately, Ms. Bertrand gets too far over her defensive skis when she scribes defense
and obfuscation that is laughable to anyone who followed the activity of CIA Director John
Brennan when she writes:
[ ] Asked for comment, White House deputy press Secretary Hogan Gidley said: " John
Brennan lied before Congress when he got caught spying on American citizens and lied about
having Russian collusion evidence that never existed. The only way I've ever heard anyone in
the White House mention him is as a punchline."
It's not clear what Gidley was referring to -- Brennan has not been accused of lying to
Congress. ( read
full article )
Obviously Ms. Bertrand is counting on people not knowing that John Brennan was caught lying
about his instructions to CIA operatives to spy on the networks of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence. Brennan later
apologized to the Senate for that effort; but hey, what's a little forgetfulness amid
professional narrative engineering.
Additionally, in directly related matters; while remembering the 'gossip-blower' stems from
the same CIA institution headed by Brennan while a member of the National Security Council; and
while remembering the Washington Post is the primary outlet for the PR efforts of the CIA
resistance du jour; the mysterious "white house insider" who penned an op-ed in the New York
Times last year has now signed an anonymous book deal expand on the anti-Trump intelligence
community narrative.
(
WaPo ) The author of an anonymous column in the New York Times in 2018, who was
identified as a senior Trump administration official acting as part of the "resistance"
inside the government, has written a tell-all book to be published next month.
The book,
titled "A Warning," is being promoted as "an unprecedented behind-the-scenes portrait of
the Trump presidency" that expands upon the Times column, which ricocheted around the world
and
stoked the president's rage because of its devastating portrayal of Trump in office. (
read more )
When CTH originally penned the term "The Big Ugly" we were directly describing a looming
confrontation that would happen between President Donald Trump and the aligned interests of the
deepest part of the Deep State. Those interests are not along party lines, they are ideological
interests directly related to the construct of the institutions of government and how those
interests tied financially back to the Administrative State.
The DOJ, FBI, CIA, ODNI and State Department do not oppose the deconstruction efforts of
Donald Trump as an outcome of bland institutional opposition. Rather the institutions
themselves are subsidiaries of a larger network that exists for the purposes of Washington DC
as a business and financial enterprise.
The reason the DC system -writ large- is going bananas is because selling the influence of
political office for financial gain is the custom and currency of DC affluence.
Selling influence and manipulating government action – both foreign and domestic
– to enhance the financial interests of other participants, is a purposeful part of DC as
a way to gain financial affluence. In essence the U.S. government is used as a tool to
accumulate wealth. This process is at the heart of all Trump's opposition.
The Christopher Steele dossier was called " Crown Material " by FBI agents within the small
group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The "Crown" description reflects the
unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.
In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline
instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the "Crown Material" within the highly
political Intelligence Community Assessment
.
Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say :
"Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment."
However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [ @01:54:28 ]:
GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?
BRENNAN: I don't.
GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any
court filing, applications?
BRENNAN: I have no awareness.
GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?
BRENNAN: No.
GOWDY: Why not?
BRENNAN: Because we didn't. It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that
we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that
was done. Uh it was not.
.
Video of the exchange [ prompted 01:54:28 just hit play ]
[ ] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being
culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into
a presidential intelligence assessment -- as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding
of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from
being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating
condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of
ridiculous stories and fibs?
Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was
accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at
all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary
imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public
and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? ( read more )
Fox News Maria Bartiromo has more knowledge of the details within the 2016 political
surveillance scandal than any other MSM host. Bartiromo has followed the events very closely
and now she is the go-to person for those who are trying to bring the truth behind the scandal
to light.
On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined
the current issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:
It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan has exposed himself to perjury.
However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents
of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis
Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about
Russian hacking.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment .
The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that
Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the
majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI
Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique "insurance policy" interest in how the report could be
utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the "high confidence" claims,
likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(
JUNE 2019 – New York Times ) [ ] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A.
sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference
campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that
flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.
During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released
a declassified
assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that "aspired to
help" Mr. Trump's electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton's. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I.
reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which
conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (
read more )
Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or
investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it's likely Durham will
cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.
Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically
engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?
The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian
activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are
centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA .
If the ICA is a false political document . then guess what?
Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big
fraud. [Which it is]
Among all media personalities Maria Bartiromo easily has the most comprehensive grasp of the
2016 operation against President Trump. During two interviews today Bartiromo outlines the
evidence that leads directly to the person at the origination point, former CIA Director John
Brennan.
First, here's a mash-up of the two interviews (Senator Graham and John Solomon) where
Bartiromo asks the same question. [ hat tip Michael Sheridan for the video]
Former CIA Director John Brennan lies at the heart of the intelligence community decision to
weaponize against Donald Trump. In this outline I will provide supporting evidence for
Bartiromo's assertion, which I suspect has already led to a criminal referral to U.S. Attorney
John Durham by HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes.
Suspicious Cat ate canary
The FBI's formal origination of the counterintelligence investigation into candidate Donald
Trump known as "Operation Crossfire Hurricane", begins with a two-page memo submitted by former
CIA Director John Brennan to former FBI Director James Comey.
The two page origination memo is known as an "EC" or "electronic communication". This
classified origination memo is one of the key documents requested by congress for
declassification by President Trump, to be shared with the American people.
According to House Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes; who is also a member of the
intelligence oversight 'Gang-of-Eight'; that EC contains intelligence material that did not
come through "official intelligence channels" into the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
The origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation was the Electronic Communication
document, a 'raw intelligence product' delivered by CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI.
The EC was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Additionally,
Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes
partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence – as an outcome of those
relationships – to the FBI.
When we first watched this interview the initial questions were: if the EC is not based on
official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the 'five-eyes' partners, then
what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created
it? And why?
Now we know many of the answers to those questions.
All research indicates CIA Director John Brennan enlisted the help of U.S. and foreign
intelligence assets to run operations against the Trump campaign early in 2016. The objective
was to give the false and manufactured appearance of compromise. Once the CIA established the
possibility of compromise, that activity created the EC which opened the door for an FBI
investigation.
The operation run by Brennan targeting Papadopoulos is at the
center of the two-page "EC" (
electronic communication ); given to FBI Director James Comey to start the
counterintelligence operation (Crossfire Hurricane) against the Trump campaign.
Yes, the primary intelligence sources of John Brennan's "EC" is were operations run by FBI
and CIA operative Stefan Halper, and western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud. A great
background on Halper is HERE .
In March 2018 Chuck Ross of The Daily
Caller took a deep dive on how Stefan Halper interacted with George Papadopoulos and Carter
Page. Halper is sketchy, and he was trying to initiate contacts with low-level Trump campaign
aides. [ SEE HERE ]
DAILY CALLER
– Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request
for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered -- and he
would accept -- during the presidential campaign.
The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a
foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British
counterpart, MI6.
Halper's September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn't his only contact with Trump
campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations,
met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned. ( Please
Keep Reading )
We now know Brennan's
originating structure involved Stefan Halper the foreign policy expert and Cambridge
professor deeply connected to the CIA and willing to run the operation to benefit the political
objective for CIA Director Brennan. This is how John Brennan originates the "EC" through
non-traditional intelligence channels. The EC is then given to James Comey, who starts
Operation Crossfire Hurricane on July 31st, 2016.
[ NOTE : •On July 31st, 2016 the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against
the Trump campaign. They did not inform congress until March 2017. •At the beginning of
August
(1st-3rd) 2016 FBI Agent Peter Strzok traveled to London, England for interviews with UK
intelligence officials. •On August 15th , 2016 Peter Strzok
sends a text message to DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page describing the " insurance policy ",
needed in case Hillary Clinton were to lose the election. That's where Carter Page comes
in.]
However, CIA Director John Brennan didn't stop with simply originating the FBI
investigation, he went on to promote additional material from his knowledge of the Christopher
Steele Dossier.
This is the part that John Brennan has denied ; however, the evidence proving
his lies is overwhelming.
We start by remembering the sworn testimony of John Brennan to congress on May 23rd, 2017.
Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan and pay close
attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video [transcribed below]:
Brennan: [13:35] "Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept
congress apprised of these issues as we identified them."
"Again, in consultation with the White House , I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of
our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional
leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard
Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between
11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of
eight members."
"Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that
means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential
election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of
congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member."
Notice a few things from this testimony. First, where Brennan says " in consultation with
the White House ". This is a direct connection between Brennan's activity and President
Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough, each of whom
would have held knowledge of what Brennan was briefing to the Go8.
Secondly, Brennan is describing raw intelligence (obviously gathered prior to the Carter
Page FISA Application/Warrant – October 21st, 2016) that he went on to brief the
Gang-of-Eight (pictured below). Notice Brennan said he did briefings "individually".
Brennan also says in his testimony that he began the briefings on August 11th, 2016. This is
a key point because former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter
to James Comey on August 27th, 2016, as an outcome of his briefing by John Brennan. But it is
the content of Reid's letter that really matters.
In the last paragraph of Reid's letter to Comey he notes something that is only cited within
the Christopher Steele Dossier [ full letter pdf
here ]:
This letter is August 27th, 2016. The Trump advisor in
the letter is Carter Page. The source of the information is Christopher Steele in his dossier.
Two months later (October 21st, 2016) the FBI filed a FISA application against Carter Page
using the Steele Dossier.
So what we are seeing here is CIA Director John Brennan briefing Harry Reid on the Steele
dossier in August 2016, even before the dossier reached the FBI. However, John Brennan has
denied seeing the
dossier until December of 2016. A transparent lie.
Brennan goes on to testify the main substance of those 2016 Go8 briefings was the same as
the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified intelligence assessments
published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA, ie. "The Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA).
We also know from Paul Sperry: "[ ] A source close to the House investigation said
Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included
former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok . "Strzok was the intermediary between
Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,"
according to the source."
(link)
♦ Summary so far : During a period early in 2016 CIA Director John Brennan
manufactured the material needed to start the FBI investigation on July 31st, 2016. John
Brennan also received information from within the Steele Dossier which he put into President
Obama's Daily Briefing and shared with the Gang of Eight.
So it would seem that Brennan was leaking to the media and pushing hard on this same Russia
narrative during the transition period. It's almost bizarre to see Brennan now saying "perhaps
he had bad information" BRENNAN IS THE INFORMATION !!
Fucking Brennan.
Additionally, if you want to throw on an even more stunning layer upon this manipulation
matrix, consider that Nellie Ohr was
likely working for the CIA.
"I read an article in the paper that mentioned Glenn Simpson. And I remembered because he
had been a Wall Street Journal reporter working on things like Russian crime and corruption,
so I recognized the name. I was underemployed at that time and I was looking for
opportunities. "
If Nellie Ohr, a known CIA open source contractor, sought out Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS
for the job in 2015, not vice-versa, then it would appear a sting operation from within the CIA
(John Brennan) was underway and long planned. The evidence of this likelihood surfaces later
from Brennan's knowledge of the specific intelligence within the Steele Dossier as shared with
Obama and briefed to Harry Reid in August 2016.
So let us recap:
♦In the first phase of this operation the CIA, likely Brennan, seeded Fusion GPS with
information via Nellie Ohr. After it became clear that Donald Trump would be the 2016 GOP
candidate, that information was then piped-into another Fusion GPS contractor and former FBI
Source, Chris Steele. Steele then "laundered", and returned the Ohr research material into an
official intelligence product to the FBI. [The tool was Carter Page.]
♦Concurrently timed with the start of this first phase, Brennan was running an
operation using Stephan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to generate the "EC" and initiate the FBI to
begin a counterintelligence operation named Crossfire Hurricane. [The tool was George
Papadopoulos]
This is why the media got/get somewhat confused with the origins of everything:
Papadopoulous (Crossfire Hurricane) -vs- Carter Page (dossier into FISA); an origination
confusion which still exists through today.
In essence we can see that John Brennan was the initiator manipulating everything, somewhat
behind the scenes, for all of the activity (tangentially noted by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in
their text messages about the CIA leaks). After the 2016 election, Brennan continued pushing
the Steele Dossier into the media bloodstream as it carried the Russian Conspiracy virus he
created.
During the time James Comey's FBI was running operation Crossfire Hurricane, Comey admitted
he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: " because of the sensitivity of
the matter ". I suspect he knew there was manipulation behind the events that initiated the
construct; he was, however, willfully blind to it.
When Brennan
now says in hindsight he might have received " bad information ", it's laughable
– because the information is his creation.
Now with all of that hindsight in mind, watch the first four minutes of this interview and
pay attention to the duping delight:
Lastly, unlike other DOJ and FBI officials connected to the fraudulent exploitation of the
FISA court, John Brennan is not attached to the ongoing DOJ Inspector General investigation
being conducted by IG Horowitz.
Presumably Inspector General Michael Horowitz is only looking at the process, procedures and
people who were involved in submitting an unverified and likely fraudulent FISA application.
Though his investigation would mean reviewing the underlying evidence for the FISA warrant, ie.
the Steele Dossier, the list of IG targets does not necessarily include anyone outside the DOJ
and FBI process.
This could mean former CIA Director John Brennan, or any other Obama-era official outside
the DOJ and FBI, could be referred for criminal investigation to John Durham; and investigation
or review of that referral should not impede any ongoing investigation by IG Michael
Horowitz.
That's why it is possible for Devin Nunes to have submitted a ¹criminal referral for
John Brennan; which would be one of the primary aspects of review by Durham (noted by Solomon),
and only tangentially connected to the IG Horowitz investigation.
¹Or, NSA Advisor Susan Rice, ODNI James Clapper, or former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
Samantha Power (unmasking); or any other administration official who may have engaged in
leaking and/or disseminating classified intelligence information.
Advertisements Report this
ad Report this ad Share this:
Horse trading
is the oxygen of politics;
it is how politicians are persuaded to care about things that otherwise would not make their radar.
Not only does it happen all the time, but it is a core feature of our political system;
representative government relies on this kind of political trading to ensure a plurality of
interests and needs are satisfied.
Members of Congress routinely trade "policy for policy." You sponsor my bill, and I'll sponsor
yours, you vote for a road in my district, and vice versa. Members even trade policy for personnel
and hiring purposes: you support my bill, and I'll let so-and-so's hearing move forward, you
appoint me to this, and I'll recommend your protege for that. These deals can even cross the
blood/brain barrier between states and the federal government.
It is not corruption. It's the warp and woof of a democratic political system. But in routinely
branding
President Trump's dealings with Ukraine as potential "corruption,"
and pointing to the exchange
of unrelated asks as proof of that corruption, our friends in the fourth estate are acting in
willful ignorance and bad faith.
The President has taken a
firm
position
that he did not hold out foreign aid to Ukraine as a condition for investigating
Hunter Biden's activities there. But, even if he did, bargaining isn't corruption -- it's
policymaking.
Rod Blagojevich.
GOVERNANCE WOULD HARDLY BE POSSIBLE
An esteemed panel of federal judges in Chicago made precisely this point a few years ago. You
may recall the
prosecution
of former-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
on various federal charges. And although the judges
largely upheld his conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit commentary on the
affair was crystal clear. At least one of the counts that the trial judge had sent to the jury was
just politics, pure and simple, and could not have been a crime.
"[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is fundamentally
unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment."
In 2008, then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected to serve as President of the United
States. Appointment of his successor in the Senate, until an interim election was held, fell by
operation of statute to Governor Blagojevich.
In
the words of Judge Frank Easterbrook
, writing for the court, the Governor saw this as a
"bonanza." Among other things, Governor Blagojevich (through intermediaries) was alleged to have
asked President-elect Obama for an appointment to the Cabinet (for himself) in exchange for him
appointing Valerie Jarrett to the interim seat in the Senate. Alternatively, he was alleged to have
asked the President-elect to "persuade a foundation to hire him at a substantial salary after his
term as Governor ended, or find someone to donate $10 million and up to a new 'social welfare'
organization that he would control."
The President-elect declined on all counts, but the lawyerly point is this: the trial judge told
the jurors that if it found the Governor had proposed any of these three deals, it could return a
verdict of guilty.
Not so fast, said Judge Easterbrook.
Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Easterbrook noted that, indeed, the trial judge's
instructions to the jury supported a conviction "even if [the jury] found that his only request of
Sen. Obama was for a position in the Cabinet." But not all the Governor's proposals were the same.
According to the court, "[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is
fundamentally unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment."
In other words, swapping one policy for another is a political commonplace. "Governance would
hardly be possible without these accommodations," the court went on to observe.
Rudy Giuliani.
INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IS -- AND SHOULD BE -- POLICY
To be sure, some folks may disagree with the President's foreign policy, but elections matter in
a representative democracy, and President Trump was duly elected.
Whether or not you agree
with his politics, he has been elected to do a job: govern.
So let's suppose -- strictly for the sake of argument -- that the President did withhold foreign aid
to Ukraine in exchange for a commitment to investigate allegations of corruption. This is, quite
literally, the exchange of one policy for another -- horse-trading in every sense. Does the United
States have no policy interest in making sure that the countries with which it interacts -- and to
which it sends aid money -- do not engage in corrupt practices? Of course, it does. The case for
"corruption" would require that President Trump withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit -- not
policy gains that are ultimately good for American foreign policy.
At its core, the case for impeachment is more than a sham: it's a misinformation
campaign in which Democrats and their media are willfully ignoring the way our policy process works
to prevent our President from governing.
Uh, yes, "horse trading" with a foreign government for info on a
political opponent is not allowed...that is the simplest form of
dictator style corruption that there is.
"Horse trading" with a
foreign government to trade hostages, or any other variety of deal
making that doesn't involve your own countries political
enemies is of course allowed and has always been done.
They already did and had no problem with the corruption
under Clinton or Obama--they just considered those "scandal
free" administrations and looked the other way. Now they
don't like the president and they want to change the rules
or take their ball and go home because they don't like the
game. Some children never grow up.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man
,
3 hours ago
link
The case for "corruption" would require that President Trump
withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit -- not policy gains that
are ultimately good for American foreign policy.
My comment:
Great article which sums up exactly what politics is..horse
trading and deal making. If President Trump is impeached on this
basis, then all elected officials in the US must also be
impeached. If you can't understand this then either : you are a
vile TDS troll or you think that there are 57 states in the US.
IT is a Coup and that is all it is. The Democrat's and their
Deep State cohorts in the CIA, FBI, MSM, are subverting the will
of the US Voter.
How do you feel about that US voter? Do you
enjoy unelected and opposition Politicians taking down an Elected
President because they don't like him and his policies?
Is that what your country has became? Does it NOT have a
Constitution anymore? Are the General Population drugged up
sufficiently to NOT NOTICE....or Understand what is going on
around them?
Are the Children of the middle class brain washed enough in
school and college to be good little neoliberals and give up ALL
FREEDOM's fought for with blood for hundreds of years?
I think there are enough SANE Americans left to stop this coup
and hang the traitors.....but will they? THAT IS THE $64,000
Question.
It's not
'Horse-trading'
when you blackmail a
vulnerable nation with withholding military assistance.
And
trying to get a foreign head of state to start an investigation so
you have a scoop to smear your potential opponent is the very
definition of abuse of power.
It's blatant and anybody denying this should be ashamed to call
themselves American.
Hmmmm, how about all the self-enriching ******** the Bidens,
and the rest of the Obama admin did to Ukraine? Why isnt Vicki
Nuland swinging from a noose?
Self-enriching ******** the Bidens, and the rest of
the Obama admin did to Ukraine?
The only proper way to investigate any foul play on this
end is through the DoJ, leveraging the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act of 1977, and asking the Ukrainian authority
for assitance through proper prosecutorial channels. So you
tell me why Barr isn't doing that?
DoD? I think not. All the ******** the Obama admin did
was under the guise of various agency schemes. State
Dept, on down the list. DoD has zero say in "policy and
trade deals".
The Ukraine is vulnerable because of foreign meddling and
internal corruption. Obama Admin pretended to give them aid
while it was stolen by the Ukrainian oligarchs, Dem cronies and
their kids.
How dare Trump ask to investigate this. How dare
he.
At its core, the case for impeachment is more than a sham:
It's a misinformation campaign in which Democrats and their
Corrupt Media are willfully ignoring Hillary's DNC/Ukraine
Collusion to bring down a duly elected President.
What the Dem's are doing since Trump was elected is simple:
projecting. They are accusing Trump of everything that they, the
Dem's, are guilty of, and "getting out in front" before they can
be accused.
Watch what happens once the indictments are handed
out by Barr, from the Durham investigation. The Dem's will SQUEAL
"FOUL!!!" They will say that Barr is just doing this to deflect
from the impeachment hearings.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian
customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American
and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its
dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize
deposits of natural gas, sufficient for domestic household
consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the
Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it
was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its
households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like
Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like
Burisma) had very high profits and very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas
for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new
president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went
sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for
their cooking and heating; and huge profits went to coffers of
the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or
subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price
hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's intervention in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even contradicting the facts the media create an opening for Trump to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
A dictionary definition of asset is:
a
useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
The word has been much in the news lately.
Usually coupled with "Russian," it's a favorite smear of establishment stalwarts like Hillary
Clinton and establishment media like
The New York Times.
It's been directed against
President Trump, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and others who question the US's interventionist
foreign and military policies.
By implication, anyone who is an asset of a foreign country places the interests of that
foreign country ahead of their own country's.
The term is especially odious when appended
to a country commonly considered an enemy. Examining US foreign and military policy the last
several decades, an unasked question is: to whom or what has that policy been "useful or valuable"?
Establishment attacks on Trump and Gabbard serve to clarify who has actually been assets
for unfriendly governments, and it's not Trump or Gabbard.
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power and no nation could directly
challenge it.
After the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb in 1949, the two
countries settled into the Cold War stalemate that lasted until the Soviet Union's dissolution in
1991. Actual use of nuclear weapons was considered potentially catastrophic, to be avoided by
either side except to counter a nuclear strike -- either preemptively or after the fact -- by the other
side. They were not considered a battlefield weapon, although there were elements of the American
military command, and probably the Soviet command as well, that at various times advanced
consideration of battlefield use.
The rest of the world's nations tried to protect themselves under the American or Soviet
nuclear umbrellas.
Both countries' confederated alliances -- essentially empires -- were based
on that ultimate protection, but the very unthinkability of nuclear weapons' use meant that other
calculations entered into governments' and rulers' calculations of strategic advantage. Just
because a nuclear power wanted something or desired a certain outcome didn't necessarily mean a
nation had to comply, especially if the envelope was not pushed too far. Were you going to drop the
bomb on a country that nationalized your oil company?
The fundamental failure of both the American and Soviet leadership was to recognize a simple
lesson of history:
more resources and energy are required to maintain an empire than the
resources and energy that the empire can extract from it. Empires are inevitably victims of their
own success.
As their geographic boundaries expand arithmetically, the challenges of
defending borders and subjugating conquered territories expands exponentially. Loot from the
colonies fuels corruption among the rulers, who typically buy off the peasantry with a
bread-and-circus welfare state. Taxes rise, the state grows, money is debased, the work ethic and
productivity crumble, and decadence and internal rot metastasize. Eventually the empire succumbs to
revolution, invasion, or both.
Empires never win the hearts or minds of all of their conquered subjects, and some resist.
Nowadays, all but the poorest of the subjugated can avail themselves of inexpensive computing and
communications.
Expensive offensive weaponry and large numbers of troops can be destroyed
or rendered inoperative by cheap rockets and artillery, improvised explosive devices, mines,
drones, and other deadly gadgetry.
The locals always know the territory and language
better than their conquerers and can usually count on the support of the civilian population.
The successful attack on a Saudi oil facility, allegedly by Yemeni Houthis, is unprecedented
because drones were used, the target was not military but industrial, and it was on the would-be
conqueror's home territory. In the larger picture, however, it's merely the most recent
manifestation of a trend that has been going on since at least the Vietnam War: the destruction of
the expensive with the cheap. The US's multi-billion dollar power grid, say, could be brought down
through a combination of sabotage and computer hacking that would probably take less than twenty
dedicated "revolutionaries" and under $100,000. That too would be unprecedented, but not really
surprising.
Those who have called the shots for the US since World War II could have grasped
the ultimately futility of empire from even a cursory reading of history.
They've
certainly had that lesson borne home to them by their own experience, if not from the Korean War
then certainly from the Vietnam War. By now, it's obvious that empire and US interventionism has
been a net loser for the US, which can no longer be said to be at an apex of unchallengeable power.
If its policies have been a net loss for the US, does that mean they have been a net gain
for those the US defines as its enemies?
In 1953, a coup sponsored by the CIA and Great Britain's MI6 deposed Iran's democratically
elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, and replaced him with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, an
autocratic and repressive US government puppet. He was deposed in 1979 by Shia fundamentalists, who
set up a theocratic regime aligned with neither the US or the Soviet Union, although decidedly
hostile to the US.
Without reviewing the tangled history of US-Iranian relations since 1979, it's fair to say that
they've remained hostile. It's been the fondest hope of the US foreign policy establishment and its
allies in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia and Israel, to unseat the theocratic regime and
install another American puppet. With the exception of the Iranian nuclear agreement abrogated by
President Trump, there has been little comity between the two countries' governments. Within the
Trump administration there are officials who openly talk of waging war and fomenting regime change.
The administration has resorted to harsh, punitive sanctions against both the country and many of
its key figures to effectuate their objectives.
Yet, "enemy" Iran has clearly been the biggest beneficiary of US policy in the Middle East.
Iranian intelligence, military, and political elements have infiltrated and gained influence in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, all nations against which the US or its Saudi Arabian
or Israelis allies have waged offensive war. A potential "Shia Crescent" from Iran to the
Mediterranean, cited as a danger justifying US interventions, is now a reality not in spite of,
but
because of
those interventions. Iran's standing in the Middle Eastern has not been
this high for at least the last several centuries.
US hostility has also driven Iran into the loving arms of Russia and China for weapons,
industrial and financial aid, and markets for its oil. This is not the only instance that Russia
and China have been the beneficiaries of the US's maladroit moves in the Middle East, Indeed, their
Belt and Road initiative, spanning Asia and the Middle East and now extending to Eastern Europe and
Africa, has been ideologically midwifed by the US. Nations have been offered a choice: US bullets,
bombs, and bullying, or Chinese and Russian infrastructure funding and expertise.
The Chinese and Russians aren't acting from altruistic motives, but the recipients
realize that and what America offers isn't altruistic either.
Choosing the former is an
easy choice with few negative consequences. What will the US do to nations that choose to enter the
Russian-Chinese orbit, start dropping nuclear bombs? Take on Russia or China? The case of Syria -- in
the Russian orbit since the 1940s -- is instructive. The US couldn't foment its desired regime change
there, although according to Obama we were fighting the "junior varsity." Once the
varsity -- Russia -- entered the picture it was all over for the US effort.
Even if there were no Belt and Road Initiative, the Russians and Chinese, now cast as the US's
great power enemies, have reaped enormous benefits from the US's interventions in the Middle East
and Northern Africa. Having stepped away from conquest, except for potentially the "conquests"
which creditors exact from debtors who cannot pay (a favorite US stratagem), Russia and China have
been able to devote substantial resources to their own infrastructures and the development of
high-tech weaponry that renders any US government impetus for military confrontation with them
delusional (see "
The
Illusion of Control, Part 1
").
Every yuan and ruble not spent on US-style interventionism, and every drop of blood not spilled,
is money and manpower available for pursuits far more rewarding than intrigue, sabotage,
skullduggery, corruption, regime change, war, and the infliction of collateral damage on
populations who, sensing the would-be conqueror's indifference to their plight, often become
terrorists, refugees or both -- "
blowback
" -- raising the butcher's bill even
higher. Let the US and its allies bear those costs.
If US foreign and military policy for many decades has been a detriment to the US and a benefit
to those the US government terms our enemies, particularly Russia, China, and Iran,
are not
the architects and proponents of those policies actually the "assets" of those countries?
That such a group includes virtually the entire US establishment doesn't mean that the question
shouldn't be asked, nor that the answer is not in the affirmative. Keep in mind that it is this
group that has lately been throwing around terms like "assets," "traitors," and "treason." In light
of the clear benefits
they
have bestowed on the enemies of
their
choosing, how
can intellectual turnabout in light of the actual results of
their
policies not be fair
play?
It wasn't Donald Trump or Tulsi Gabbard who authorized the US's failed wars and
regime-change efforts.
Unlike most of her critics, Gabbard fought in some of them! That
Trump continues such efforts justifiably elicits condemnation, but he's been in office less than
three years and America's malevolent misadventures have gone on for over six decades. During that
time, he's been one of the few prominent figures to even question them, and he's been roundly
criticized for it.
The trillions of dollars spent and the millions of victims killed and wounded, whose lives have
been upended, both from our own military and the nations we've devastated or destroyed, demands
what we'll never get -- a comprehensive investigation, a thorough accounting, and justice blind to the
positions, wealth, and power of the people responsible.
It requires a clear-eyed assessment
of how much they have benefited our enemies -- and themselves -- and that will mean, in all justice,
calling them what they are: enemy assets, traitors guilty of the darkest treachery to their
country.
To be effective, agit-prop requires a modicum of truth inserted in
its' body of lies.
In the present case
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power
and no nation could directly challenge it.
serves that purpose, and from there, we go deeper and deeper
into the authors' ******** narrative. Back it up... and start
over.
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power and
no nation could directly challenge it.
Only a covert,
'supranational' movement, capable of operating by stealth, and
using tools of deceit and subversion could be successful at that
task. But 'challenging the USA' meant less a struggle against its
already compromised political class[Wilson and his 'controller'
House demonstrate that subtext admirably]and more a 'culture war'
against the values of independent thought and living, free
enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit;
That was the task assigned to the Trotskyite faction of the
international "jewish revolutionary spirit cookers" cabal; their
backers - the Wall St/London/Frankfurt heretical judaic Frankist
banksters cult - wished to use the power of the west to reign in
the break away "stalinist' national communists running their main
franchise - the USSR.
So cultural marxism and 'the new left' were born, and all
organs of the western executive, judicial and administrative
levels of government infiltrated by agents of a foreign power. Not
a 'state' power.Just as important, they took over the educational
systems, in order to systemically breed a contempt for the very
values which had made the west rich and successful.
The products of that long process of cultural and intellectul
devolution now flock to sites just like this one, so as to
celebrate the victory of their foreign masters, and to indulge in
the obligatory spitting upon the remnants of their own culture.
They call traitors 'patriots' and patriots 'traitors.' And make
sure every discussion devolves into the same miasma of distortion
and nonsense.
Drimpf signals the successful conclusion of the long struggle
to make the USA a pariah state despised by the rest of the world.
This isn't complicated. Our threats are not other countries. Our
threats are not other political parties. Those other governments
and our politicians are all owned by the same people. Those same
people are those that comprise the international banking cartel.
They are those who own stakes in the central banks, the World
Bank, the IMF, and the BIS.
And I hate to break it to you, but
they own Drumpf and Gabbard just the same as all the others. If
you're bickering along party lines, you're either a shill or
you've been had. Time to wake up now...
Tulsi lost me when she supported Ellen loving on war criminal
G.W. Bush and then her refusal to condemn the Bidens for their
graft in Ukraine. She's not quite the outsider we would all
like to believe.
You're not getting it. She should have never had you. None
of them should have ever had you. They are all bought and
paid for. They are all actors and actresses in a great big
political theater production designed to distract the People
while the real crap goes down out of sight.
Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations
by
Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/01/2019 - 13:25
0
SHARES
A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten
cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that
he worked with Joe Biden, former
CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative
who sought dirt on President Trump from
officials in Ukraine's former government.
According to the
Washington Examiner
, discussions with the whistleblower - revealed by
RealClearInvestigation
s
as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, "and there is no
discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first's claims."
Ciaramella complained that President Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to
investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims related
to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in 2016.
On Thursday, a top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call
between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky testified that he saw
nothing illegal about the conversation
.
"
I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed
,"
said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call
between the two leaders.
And now, the partisan whistleblowers have cold feet;
"There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or
appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees.
There is no further discussion
ongoing between the legal team and the committees
," said the
Examiner
's source.
The whistleblower is a career CIA officer with expertise in Ukraine policy
who served on the White House National Security Council during the Obama administration,
when 2020 Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden was "point man" for
Ukraine
, and during the early months of the Trump administration. -
Washington
Examiner
In other words,
House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand
whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually
testify about it
(for now...).
On Thursday, the House passed a resolution establishing a framework for Trump impeachment
proceedings, belatedly granting Republicans the ability to subpoena witnesses, but only if
Schiff and fellow Democrats on the Intelligence Committee agree.
Mark Zaid, who along with Andrew Bakaj is an attorney for both the original whistleblower and
the second whistleblower, told the
Washington Examiner
the legal team was willing
to work with lawmakers so long as anonymity is ensured
. "We remain committed to
cooperating with any congressional oversight committee's requests
so long as it properly
protects and ensures the anonymity of our clients
," Zaid said.
On Wednesday,
Zaid and Bakaj
declined to confirm or deny in a statement
to the
Washington Examiner
that Eric
Ciaramella, 33, a career CIA analyst and former Ukraine director on the NSC
,
was the whistleblower
after a report by RealClearInvestigations. -
Washington
Examiner
In September, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, who lied about contacts with
Ciaramella (and hired two Ciaramella associates as staffers) said that the whistleblower "would
like to speak to our committee."
Once Ciaramella's status as a CIA officer and his links to Biden emerged, however, Schiff
backtracked. On October 13 he changed his tune, saying "Our primary interest right now is making
sure that that person is protected."
Meanwhile,
once the House impeaches Trump - which it most certainly will
-
the tables will turn in the Senate
, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only
will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence,
they'll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they
desire
as we head into the 2020 US election.
Nancy Pelosi saw this coming and caved to her party anyway. There isn't enough popcorn in the
world for what's coming.
Have a few seconds of Nunes in an interview, "That's why I kind of
ignore it all and just make fun of them because it's such a joke.
I mean, it's really just a bunch of nitwits."
Lt Col Vindman, who was on the phone conversation and who is a very
close associate with Eric Ciaramella, was most likely the one who
leaked to Ciaramella; probably to give him a heads up; probably also
as part of the nefarious deep state op.
When Representative Jordan
asked Vindman who he spoke to after President Trump's conversation,
Schiff would not permit him to answer. Wonder why?
Now is a PERFECT time for Judicial Watch to file a FOIA request
for all texts and emails to/from Ciaramella.
ANd yet....they can continue this with impunity as there is nobody
who has power to stop them. Half the US population will continue to
believe the MSM nonsense. No Barr, no Trump has any guts to applpy
justice, but just use it for politics, not truth or justice. Weird
this US "justice system". Are there no laws on libel, defamation,
fraud, malintent etc. Years of promises about indictments, but
nothing in reality, just show. Powerless even in their own country,
but capable of stealing the oil from wrecked Syria: all crooks!
Dems are so fucked it's incredible. I can't see how they could
possibly survive this ****. Gabbard should form a new party, at least
she has some common sense.
"... The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices independent of what the president thinks or believes. ..."
"... If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected officials why should we bother with holding elections? ..."
"... The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies? ..."
"... I surmise he is reflecting Israeli disquiet with the idea of a peace in Syria that leaves Assad in power. ..."
"... I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the "government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community". ..."
"... Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it. Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters. ..."
"... Our foreign policies have, IMO, long been tailored to the needs and expectations of our major corporations. Notably, the fossil fuel corporations and their allies on Wall street. ..."
"... Our corporate empire wishes to export predatory capitalism around the globe, and pity any nation who stands in our way.. ..."
"... Isn't it something, b. Could you imagine ever reading a headline out of Russia or Germany where a subordinate went on record declaring he made attempts to edit Putin or Merkel's classified phone transcript, he then admits to sharing this classified information with a group of peers OUTSIDE classified channels and ended his 15 mins of fame by declaring Putin nor Merkel's policies on Ukraine fit the consensus of a national security bureaucratic group of nobodies. It's simply unimaginable! ..."
"... Which tells me they are fighting for something else entirely. Maybe more light will be shed following the release of the IG's FISA report. Then again, maybe they are motivated by fear that their lining their pockets with taxpayers gazillions has finally caught up to them. ..."
"... When Vindman admitted his crime, the Sergeant at Arms should have arrested him immediately after his testimony, but he was allowed to walk--yet another perversion of justice! By cutting off the line of questioning, Schiff was engaging in the obstruction of justice--the very crime he accuses Trump of committing! IMO, the application of the law must be depoliticized and all offenders arrested regardless of their station in life. ..."
"... A guy like this Vindman character, a walking identity problem first and foremost, given his background, should never have made it through the ranks of the US forces, let alone be given a job at the Security Council. A loyalty issue waiting to get worse. It's just wrong, a ridiculous notion. ..."
"... If you want to join the British forces e.g. you are required to have parents who were already born in Britain. Kept me from applying to join their navy back when I tried to. I was disappointed then, but it makes sense to handle the nationality question just like that. I can see that now. ..."
"... Regarding Washington, seems like the Beast, aka the Deep State, is finally coming out of its lair. Trump is way too salacious as bait for them to be careful and keep in hiding. Before they realize that trying to snatch Trump will be their own undoing, things will have way too much momentum for them to stop. Just look at Rep. Schiff moving from blunder to blunder. He'd be so much better off just doing nothing for half a year and keeping his mouth shut, but he somehow cannot do that. Neither can the Times. ..."
"... American citizens lost their voice in foreign policy a long time ago. It's a question I ask when the party politicians meet with lobbyists or attend events like Bilderberg. I am thankful for the alt media. Americans should be disgusted by their politicians and political parties. ..."
President Trump and many other people believe that it would be better for the United
States to ally with Russia against an ever growing China than to push Russia and China into
an undefeatable alliance against the United States. Trump often alluded to this during his
campaign. The voters seem to have liked that view.
The U.S. coup in the Ukraine made that policy more difficult to achieve. But within the
big picture the Ukraine is just a bankrupt and corrupt state that has little strategic value
and can be ignored.
One can disagree with that view and with other foreign policy priorities Trump set out and
pursues. I certainly disagree with most of them. But for those who work "at the pleasure of
the President" his views are the guidelines that set the direction of their duties.
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are
trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest
and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices
independent of what the president thinks or believes.
We have warned that such interference by the Borg, the 'deep state' or 'swamp', is a
danger
to democracy :
If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected
officials why should we bother with holding elections?
The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are
likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service
functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?
It is unfortunate that the above points have to be repeated again and again. But when
powerful media try to sell the lies about the Ukrainian interferences by repeating the same
falsehoods over and over again the truth has only a chance to win when it is likewise spread
repeatedly.
Vindman is a Jew born in Ukraine and brought up in the Little Odessa
neighborhood of Brooklyn. I surmise he is reflecting Israeli disquiet with the idea of a
peace in Syria that leaves Assad in power.
I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the
"government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to
hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is
supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize
Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community".
Everyone was shocked when Trump won the election, especially Trump and the "government
policy community". He is the proverbial dog that caught the speeding car. It's quaint that
Trump thinks he can make real policy changes. His failures in medical insurance, controlling
the FED, etc. underscore the point that being the leader is useless if underlings don't obey.
The "government policy community" will never follow Trump and it won't stop until Trump is
gone one way or another.
Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is
required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it.
Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy
established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the
stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters.
I'm starting to think that things may get really ugly in the "Home of the Brave and the
Land of the Free".
Our foreign policies have, IMO, long been tailored to the needs and expectations of our major
corporations. Notably, the fossil fuel corporations and their allies on Wall street.
Our corporate empire wishes to export predatory capitalism around the globe, and pity
any
nation who stands in our way..
Isn't it something, b. Could you imagine ever reading a headline out of Russia or Germany
where a subordinate went on record declaring he made attempts to edit Putin or Merkel's
classified phone transcript, he then admits to sharing this classified information with a
group of peers OUTSIDE classified channels and ended his 15 mins of fame by declaring Putin
nor Merkel's policies on Ukraine fit the consensus of a national security bureaucratic group
of nobodies. It's simply unimaginable!
Last night I watched a report by Catherine Herrhidge of Fox state that in Vindman's
statement he admits to sharing POTUS' classified transcripts and other readouts to a small
group of others outside the NSC. In essence he admitted to leaking classified information.
When Rep Jim Jordan started to drill down into that line of questioning, Schiff cut him
off.
This entire shitshow honestly tells any w/an open mind that the D's and their leadership
are desperate. Imagine a committee chairman not allowing members to question a witness about
who he shared the President's classified information with. That's not the rascally Dem Party
I know. It's painfully obvious these radicals will walk on hot coals, climb the Himalayans
and swim across the Atlantic to pin anything and I mean anything on Trump. They do not care
about downstream impacts, catastrophic as they may turn out to be.
Which tells me they are fighting for something else entirely. Maybe more light will be
shed following the release of the IG's FISA report. Then again, maybe they are motivated by
fear that their lining their pockets with taxpayers gazillions has finally caught up to
them.
When Vindman admitted his crime, the Sergeant at Arms should have arrested him immediately
after his testimony, but he was allowed to walk--yet another perversion of justice! By
cutting off the line of questioning, Schiff was engaging in the obstruction of justice--the
very crime he accuses Trump of committing! IMO, the application of the law must be
depoliticized and all offenders arrested regardless of their station in life.
A guy like this Vindman character, a walking identity problem first and foremost, given
his background, should never have made it through the ranks of the US forces, let alone be
given a job at the Security Council. A loyalty issue waiting to get worse. It's just wrong, a
ridiculous notion.
If you want to join the British forces e.g. you are required to have parents who were already
born in Britain. Kept me from applying to join their navy back when I tried to. I was
disappointed then, but it makes sense to handle the nationality question just like that. I
can see that now.
And nothing good ever comes from Ukraine. It's a psyched country, or would-be country, just
there to give the world trouble.
Regarding Washington, seems like the Beast, aka the Deep State, is finally coming out of its
lair. Trump is way too salacious as bait for them to be careful and keep in hiding. Before
they realize that trying to snatch Trump will be their own undoing, things will have way too
much momentum for them to stop. Just look at Rep. Schiff moving from blunder to blunder. He'd
be so much better off just doing nothing for half a year and keeping his mouth shut, but he
somehow cannot do that. Neither can the Times.
Looks like
Real Clear Investigations is suggesting a certain Eric Ciaramella is the "whistleblower",
which might upset Schiff since the Democrats want he name and political attachments kept a
secret. Anyway the article provides some more pieces for the Russiagate/Ukrainegate jigsaw
puzzle.
American citizens lost their voice in foreign policy a long time ago. It's a question I ask
when the party politicians meet with lobbyists or attend events like Bilderberg. I am
thankful for the alt media. Americans should be disgusted by their politicians and political
parties.
Okay, so just what is the Outlaw US Empire's Foreign/Imperial Policy? I'm glad I asked!
The overarching #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire is to establish Full Spectrum
Domination over the planet and its people as enunciated publicly in 1996 policy paper
Joint
Vision 2010 which was modified and republished as Joint Vision 2020 , both of
which are essentially military policies, not National Defense as they're espousing 100%
offensive doctrines. In tandem is the much older economic policy plot known as the Washington
Consensus, which I've referenced many times and is best explained by Dr. Hudson's book
Super
Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire , and began at the end of WW2
but was greatly expanded/escalated in 1978.
Now it's obvious that Trump's trying to implement his own policies since he's getting so
much resistance. On the previous thread having this topic, I noted that Pepe Escobar had
written several pieces citing members of the Current Oligarchy who are Trump supporters who
provided him with info as to the likely directions of Trump's policies if he became POTUS. In
response to a request by Evelyn, I went and looked for those old items and found several.
This one IMO is worthy
of close scrutiny. Pepe opens:
"And for all the 24/7 scandal time of non-stop groping and kissing and lewd locker room
misbehaving, Trump seems to be ready to limp toward the finish line just as he began; an
all-out populist/nativist/nationalist fighting open borders (a Clinton mantra, as revealed by
the latest WikiLeaks Podesta email dump); 'free' trade; neoliberal globalization; and regime
change/bomb them into democracy/'humanitarian' imperialism."
Yes, there's more, but the above's more than enough to show that Trump's 100% against the
two major policies of the Outlaw US Empire--and--he's actually done what the above suggests
he might do. I remember reading that just a little more than 3 years ago and thought Pepe was
fed a line of bull from his sources--he wasn't.
S.O. 2
"> Will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its
dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.
Take a look at that statement and realise how diseased it is."
I totally agree. It is diseased on multiple levels. "lock in"? he says? What if Ukrainians
change their minds??? Say, by electing a Russia-leaning politico?
Oh, right, that's what happened back in 2014. Hence, the Maidan "lock-in." to me this "lock
in" comment is an open confession of ongoing meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs.
That is quite apart from the sick joke that is reference to "a dream of vibrant democracy
and economic development" brought about by the "West-leaning trajectory."
From what I have heard, Ukraine is an unmitigated disaster since "the West" decided to
determine and "lock in" its political trajectory. Not to mention thousands dead in the
Donbass and Lukansk.
"Donald Trump's red wave on Election Day was an unprecedented body blow against
neoliberalism. The stupid early-1990s prediction about the 'end of history' turned into a
– possible – shock of the new....
"Once again. A body blow, not a death blow. Like the cast of The Walking Dead, the
zombie neoliberal elite simply won't quit. For the Powers That Be/Deep State/Wall Street
axis, there's only one game in town, and that is to win, at all costs . Failing that, to
knock over the whole chessboard, as in hot war...
"The angry, white, blue collar Western uprising is the ultimate backlash against
neoliberalism – an instinctive reaction against the rigged economic casino capitalism
game and its subservient political arms. That's at the core of Trump winning non-college
white voters in Wisconsin by 28 points. Blaming 'whitelash', racism, WikiLeaks or Russia is
no more than childish diversionary tactics." [My Emphasis]
No, they didn't quit but immediately put their very improvised "insurance policy" into
play based on the lies and contrivances concocted during the campaign and put into play by
Obama in the most unprecedented fashion ever as a sitting POTUS had never before sought to
undermine/sabotage the incoming POTUS in the manner being devised--essentially in my book,
Obama committed treason: again .
In his written testimony (from the Stars and Stripes account in Don Bacon's link at 146 in
the previous 'Deep State' thread) Lt. Colonel Vindman wrote:"...I am a patriot, and it is my
sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics."
Thanks so much b, for elaborating on that first part - "...sacred duty and honor to
advance.."
It does seem the Constitutional duties and limitations got lost in the shuffle back when
George Bush (I think it was) joked the Constitution was 'just a piece of paper.' Still, even
he too thought foreign policy was his to dictate. I am remembering the 'first strike'
doctrine that he propounded and Al Gore gave a speech decrying back in the day.
That "advance" stuck in my craw - thanks for shining the light.
@29 Ghost Ship
fascinating... didn't realize how much the Trump Admin's seemingly simple
retaliation-for-Russiagate investigation of Biden really struck a nerve among the Obama era
CIA/NSC Ukraine team. Wonder what they know.
Nice misdirection Donald. I asked about the sudden interest in the Ukraine thing, trump
and Giulianis latest Old Man Yells at Cloud moment, not some old news about credit cards.
As for "sudden interest in the Ukraine thing" I would like to remind you that Ukraine was an
important player in Russiagate, and, as such, is potentially guilty in the interference in the
USA elections.
Below is one tidbit for your attention: there is actually an old (1999) and a very
interesting treaty between the USA and Ukraine under which Ukraine is legally obligated to help
the USA exactly in the matters discussed by Trump. Under this treaty very little sovereignty is
reserved for Ukraine , if the USA wants to investigate something. So no pressure, or God forbid
quid pro quo is needed at all. Ukraine is legally obligated to deliver the materials
requested and/or open their own investigation to get those materials for the USA.
I think that not only you, but also other "Full of Schiff" people in this blog will have
great difficulties in understanding this legal situation ;-).
Due to existence of this treaty, from a legal standpoint Trump behaved exactly as if he was
asking Governor of NJ for help in investigation of Jon Corzine, or older Kushner for their
misdeeds. So while ethically he was wrong, and it was politically suicidal to include Biden
(who, being semi-senile is an ideal for Trump opponent on Dem side) along with legitimate
request to provide information about Ukrainian action of CrowdStrike, and, especially, servers
that were used for this (from which probably fake Russian attack on DNC originated)
That blunder allowed Dems plotters to launch a very successful counterattack on his attempt
to get to the origins of Russiagate.
But legally he was on a pretty solid ground: below is the quote from Bill Clinton letter to
the Senate on November 10, 1999 Treaty Document 106-16 -106th
" Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements
of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents;
locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other
purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to
restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any
other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. "
Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, said Morrison's
testimony is filling in blanks -- and completing a narrative that increasingly points to a quid
pro quo.
Sal, that was an interesting link referring to text of Trump's discussion with
Zelinsky.
I am not very astute in the details, it appears to me that the impeachment "charge" of
Trump strong-arming the foreign president for political gain has no merit. This will be the
second time (at least) that the dems have embarked on agenda to disrupt the functioning of
the executive because they do not approve of the intent - first case was intent to improve
relations with Russia, second being intent to investigate an attempt at strong-arming foreign
government (already admitted to).
Even if the charge(s) had some merit I imagine it is unlikely that the Senate would allow
the removal of Trump (as long as he is playing ball on ziocon agenda).
So dems will (potentially) damage themselves politically for the purpose of disrupting the
executive, again.
As
Bloomberg reports, the onus is now clearly on Nancy Pelosi to finish what she started.
However, she is still losing in the areas where it matters most: No. 1) in the court of public
opinion, where the country is roughly split on support for impeachment. That's right: All of
the Dems' smears have had practically no impact, perhaps because the White House immediately
moved to release the rough transcript, allowing the public to see with its own eyes that there
was no quid-pro-quo during the July 25 call with Zelensky.
Whatever progress impeachment has
made in terms of public opinion, Pelosi better prepare to lose it. Because, as Bloomberg points
out, the impeachment inquiry has burst into public view. In a few weeks, public hearings will
begin, and although the Dems promised the White House that Trump's legal team would be allowed
to participate, it turns they won't be allowed to cross examine witnesses until the next round,
which will be handled by the Judiciary Committee.
And even then, the Dems will have a veto over any witnesses the Republicans wish to call.
Trump has been mostly shut out of the process so far, but his persistent criticisms of the
Witch Hunt have still been effective, and that's unlikely to change.
House Democrats, have been careful not to divulge their strategy, but some elements are
coming into focus. By allowing Trump's legal team to participate in the second, highly public,
half of the pre-impeachment hearings, they've created a venue that could possibly lead to Trump
testifying publicly. Or at least they set it up so that they could criticize Trump if he
refuses. It's worth noting that the way this has all been set up, it's almost as if the
leadership assumes impeachment will fail, but has decided that the political boost they might
gain by bashing Trump is worth the effort, according to
the New York Times.
As one politico who spoke to the NYT reportedly said, it appears both sides have begun a
"political death march" until the next election. For the Dems, that means allowing the newly
reinvigorated far-left base to take the reins, at the risk of undermining the moderates who
still vote in vast numbers across the US.
The Dims think this is a red / blue game, but it's not... They have failed to take into
consideration the largest voting block in the country, independents... With Nancy &
company's tactics and platform since they took control of Congress, I don't think they will
get a single vote except from the hard left next year as no independent in their right mind
would vote for them... Have to give it to them though, they are going out in a blaze of
glory... The Dimotard party is done. finished, kaput...
If anything, Nutsy Feloni's corrupt House merely shows more and more Americans everyday
that we're taxed WITHOUT any representation, just like the Brits did in 1775/6.
They're shooting themselves in the foot and then in the head in 2020.
Schiff AND Nadler get to approve any and all Republican witnesses and Schiff still gets to
have closed hearings and still gets to tamper with witnesses by telling them what to answer
and how to answer in his closed hearings. There will be ZERO transparency but of course the
MSM will say it's transparent and open in (with most Americans believing it since most
Americans are abject fidiots) exactly the same way they say absolutely ZERO now about the
fact that Schiff is leaking only what he wants the Marxist press to leak. Stalin, Hitler,
Polpot, Mao, Castro would be extremely jealous of the Democrats.
Basically, the Democrats are saying "screw half the country". They don't represent anybody
as far as I'm concerned. They've snow jobbed their own voters with the propaganda from the
media they own. Truth has been the casualty for many years now. This must be corrected, or it
will surely lead to civil war.
Despite their haste to rid America of the Trump Presidency, there is one very significant
problem that plagues Congress that they will do absolutely nothing to solve:
in a massive display of cognitive dissonance, despite American's distaste for their
"representatives", they keep voting them back into office by overwhelming
percentages.
Growing up in the 80s I always saw Africa suffering from wars, famine, disease etc on tv.
After the fall of the Apartheid govt, Africa became peaceful. Weird huh?
What are your opinions on the Sunday 3rd of November Seattle doomsday conspiracy? I was very
sceptical at first but it started to freak me out a bit since there really are a lot of
Seattle/terrorism/nuclear weapons and 3/11 references in movies and series. With Israeli
embassies closed world wide and Israeli mass casualty exercises going on something seems to
be brewing.
Because the sheeple are trained to not "throw away their vote" by voting for third party
or independent candidates. They've yet to learn that voting for candidates deemed "electable"
by the regime's political machinery gatekeepers is the ultimate waste. Anyone over 40
should've learned by now. Instead, they're told "democracy works!" and "vote harder!" (donate
more money, cuz "this time it's personal" or something...).
(Not telling you what you don't already know. Just appending to your statement.)
And I finally understand why people in other countries sometimes boycott their
elections.
The "whistleblower" is reportedly Eric Ciaramella.
here
also: photo of Biden with caption: Joe Biden: Invited Ciaramella to state luncheon with
Italian premier. Also invited: Brennan, Comey, Clapper.
Sal, that was an interesting link referring to text of Trump's discussion with
Zelinsky.
I am not very astute in the details, it appears to me that the impeachment "charge" of
Trump strong-arming the foreign president for political gain has no merit. This will be the
second time (at least) that the dems have embarked on agenda to disrupt the functioning of
the executive because they do not approve of the intent - first case was intent to improve
relations with Russia, second being intent to investigate an attempt at strong-arming foreign
government (already admitted to).
Even if the charge(s) had some merit I imagine it is unlikely that the Senate would allow
the removal of Trump (as long as he is playing ball on ziocon agenda).
So dems will (potentially) damage themselves politically for the purpose of disrupting
the executive, again.
The thoughtful James Kustler, (and I too) have doubts about election 2020... "...a colossal
Three-Card-Monte game that produces a lot of "money" without producing wealth. Even worse,
financialization destroyed the indexes that accounted for the measurement of real wealth, or
capital, and replaced it with accounting fraud, so it's very hard to see the damage.
What it boils down to is that the USA is no longer a credit-worthy borrower. If
the..."
.................
He's wrong, of course, somebody will take the oath...
Did it matter last time?
Is it already over? ("it" being Murka itself) If, as we see, the Basic Law (USC) is
discarded (it has) what's left?
A simulacrum...
...........
James @ 11 / 12 People who might imagine that rudeness is a good may possibly decide later
that it is not. It is hard to undo.
I myself read and re-read all the comments...often, in fact, they're more interesting when
they are "OT"...subjective, of course.
"... Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal: ..."
"... " Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. " ..."
"... The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page: ..."
"... With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very, very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter. ..."
With the Trump impeachment procedures ongoing and the connection to his conversation about the
Biden family with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, there has been very little coverage of an
important aspect of the relationship between Washington and Kiev. While none of us can speak to
the actual intent of Donald Trump's remarks be it for personal gain or for other reasons, there
is background information that may help illuminate the context of the discussion between the
two world leaders.
In case you haven't read the pertinent section of the transcript of the conversation, here it
is:
" President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that
you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any
future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the
United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States
and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard
on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him
having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate
even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just
recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we
will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody
but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most
experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you
Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also
plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as
the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I
can assure you.
President Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good
and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way
they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr.
Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I
would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy
very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that
would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the
people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution
and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney
General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you
can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all,
I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute
majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate,
who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or
she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.
The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the
honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top
of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to
us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in
our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall
her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad
ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she
admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new
President well enough.
President Trump: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr.
Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get
to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very
badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to
get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many
Ukrainian friends, their incredible people." (my bolds)
Now, let's look back in time to 1998. On July 22, 1998, a treaty was signed between Ukraine and
Washington.
The Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters was signed in Kiev on the aforementioned date. Here is an
excerpt from the The original letter of submittal from the Department of State to the
President's office dated October 19, 1999 which states the following:
"I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty between the United States of America and
Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the Treaty''), signed at
Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice
and consent to ratification. Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an exchange of notes under which the
Treaty is being provisionally applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual assistance in criminal matters.
Provisional application would cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar
bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with
Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our
ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses.The Treaty is designed to
be self-executing and will not require new legislation." (my bold)
The Treaty was then transmitted by the President of the United States (Bill Clinton) to the
Senate on November 10, 1999 (Treaty Document 106-16 -106th Congress - First Session) as shown
on this letter of
transmittal from Bill Clinton's office:
Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal:
" Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving
documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or
other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related
to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any
other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. "
The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September
27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the
President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on
February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page:
Here are the first two pages of the Treaty which outline the scope of assistance that is to
be offered by both nations as well as the limitations on assistance:
... ... ...
If you wish to read the Treaty in its entirety, please click
here .
With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very,
very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking
Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter.
Cohen observes in his latest conversation with John Batchelor that the so-called Impeachment
inquiry, whether formal or informal, will make the new Cold War even worse and more dangerous
than it already is, noting that an inflection point has been reached, because at the core of
these allegations -- most of which are undocumented and a substantial number of which are
untrue -- revolving around Russiagate and now Ukrainegate is an underlying demonization of
Russia. Relations between America and Russia will continue to deteriorate either due to the
fact that the entire political spectrum is engaging in a frenzy of Russophobia or that
President Trump, who ran and won on a platform of improving relations with Russia, is now
completely shackled, thus it is inevitable that the new Cold War will continue to become more
dangerous.
Regarding Attorney General Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, as Cohen
noted previously, Barr has made it clear that he's investigating not the FBI but the
intelligence agencies, and Cohen is uncertain that even the Attorney General of the United
States can be successful in that line of inquiry. For example, the young and politically
inconsequential George Papadopolous, a young aid to the Trump campaign, got four or five
visitors, every one of them tied to foreign intelligence, American or European, which makes it
self-evident that the Intelligence Agencies were running an operation against the Trump
campaign. Cohen says that even if Barr is a resolute man and says he wants to get to the bottom
of this, Cohen is not confident that he will be able to do so.
Cohen notes that the Russian press, which follows American politics closely, has resulted in
a consensus that all of this -- Russiagate, Ukrainegate -- was created to stop Trump from
having better relations with Russia. Thus, it is important that Putin had been told the reason
Trump cannot engage in détente is because of Trump being shackled.
Discussing the recent American mission against Abu Baker al-Baghdadi in Syria, Cohen stated
Nancy Pelosi utterly disgraced herself when she complained Trump informed the Russians about
the success of the mission and its initiation, considering the fact that this wing of Congress
is so against Trump he had no guarantee that one of them would not have leaked the mission
before it began. Russian intelligence in that part of the world is probably better than other
nation's, so Cohen assumes Russia knew about the mission and that they helped by providing
information to America.
In addition, Cohen has noted Putin discussed a partnership with America against domestic
terrorism starting with his approach to Obama and noted that even considering the September 11
terror attack, Russia has suffered more victims of domestic terrorism than America has. Obama
thought about the proposal, hesitated, and it never happened. These recent events are a
reminder that the United States and Russia are uniquely positioned to partner against
international terrorism, but this may be slightly beyond the grasp of President Trump at the
present time.
Cohen noted that expert opinion in Russia -- which informs the Kremlin leadership, including
Putin -- has soured on the United States; the older generation of Russian America specialists
who like America, who visit regularly and appreciate American culture, have become utterly
disillusioned and cannot promote a Russian-American partnership given what has happened to
Trump.
Regarding Ukraine, Cohen notes it shares a very large border with Russia, tens of millions
of intermarriages, language, culture and history, and although the United States shares none of
this with Ukraine, the United States has declared Ukraine is a strategic ally, and this would
be equivalent to Russia stating that Mexico is its strategic ally, which is preposterous; the
term "strategic" clearly has military implications.
Expanding on the topic of Ukraine, despite its size and natural resources, it is the poorest
country in Europe. The new president, a comedian who starred in a TV show portraying the
Ukranian president and thus life imitates art, ran as a peace candidate; that and his promise
to fight corruption resulted in his victory. Part of his pledge was to meet with Putin to try
to solve the conflicts; but he promised to end the hot war with Russia. American politics got
in the way and people are still dying: at last count, there were approximately thirteen
thousand dead, including women and children. And the peace candidate has been dragged into
American politics and the commentary on Ukraine has a colonial tone. America speaking of
Ukraine as a "strategic ally" is foolishness and warfare thinking. What should be the American
policy is to encourage Zelensky to pursue these peace policies with Russia so the war doesn't
spread and the killing stops and that Ukraine, which is a potentially rich country, can
recover. While Obama egged on the war policy, Trump seemed to have no policy, other than to
encourage Zelensky in his peace initiative. What isn't known in the conversation Trump had with
Zelensky was whether he encouraged him in his peace initiative; the transcript is a fragment,
redacted and edited so that it doesn't mention the war but certainly it was discussed. The
issue is whether the United States should give Ukraine's government $400 million dollars in
military equipment. Obama, who Cohen observes was not a good foreign policy president refused
to do so but Cohen concludes that was a wise decision. All that providing weapons to Ukraine
would accomplish is to incite the pro-war forces in Kiev against the anti-war forces led by
Zelensky; the military advantage in any event lies with Russia.
Despite the fact Zelensky is an actor, he did run on a program of peace and Cohen believes
that he is sincere; Cohen notes the problem is not Russia, but the armed Nationalists who are
opposed to peace -- approximately 30,000 -- who have publicly threatened Zelensky. Cohen notes
Putin wants to end the war with Ukraine and he has made efforts to help Zelensky, such as the
recent prisoner release, although he included people Russians consider terrorists. Thus,
Zelensky doesn't have a lot of political power. While there are bad nationalist actors -- the
Azov battalion, which threatened Zelensky with either removal or death -- nevertheless Cohen
has asked where the regular army stands: will it back him, will it be loyal? That answer now is
unknown.
Cohen concluded to most Ukrainians Zelensky represented hope, hope in the war against
corruption and hope against the war. The Kremlin wants to end the war; Zelensky has a chance,
he's supported by Germany and France, Putin is helping, but the United States is not a party of
the Minsk Agreement peace acccord. Trump has intruded in his own unusual way but can be a
factor for good. If Cohen were advising President Trump, he'd tell him if he favored the
negotiations for Russian and Ukrainian peace, this would favor his historical reputation.
"... Ciaramella was a known Susan Rice protege. He is said to have traveled to Ukraine with Vice President Joe Biden twice. ..."
"... He was a close associate of State Department anti-Trump partisan Victoria Nuland. Ciaramella was involved in the 2016 correspondence about the $1 billion dollar loan guarantee Biden held up until prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired. ..."
If Eric Ciaramella really is the whistleblower, the whole impeachment narrative is
decimated Published 1 day ago on October 30, 2019 By 1 day ago on October 30, 2019 By on
October 30, 2019 By on October 30, 2019 By October 30, 2019 By JD Rucker
The purpose of being a "whistleblower" is to expose wrongdoing perpetrated by people in
power whose actions are being concealed from the public, oversight officials, and/or law
enforcement. It is never to be used for political gain, whether personal or on behalf of
others. It is also not supposed to be used as a ploy against one's political opponents or the
political opponents of those with whom the whistleblower is attached.
In other words, blowing the whistle is not supposed to be weaponized for political purposes,
but if it turns out CIA operative Eric Ciaramella is the Ukraine whistleblower, his report can
only be viewed as an attempted political assassination.
We know this because he has been actively involved in multiple attempts to take down the
President even before he was elected. He is the "Deep State" pawn many on the right have
condemned, a pawn who has reported multiple instances of the President's "wrongdoings" which
invariably turned out to be false.
If anyone can be less credible than Adam Schiff, it's Eric Ciaramella. When other news
outlets pointed out the whistleblower was a Democrat, I shrugged. No big deal. A person's
allegiance to an opposing party does not eliminate credibility in and of itself. But when it
was revealed that he worked for former Vice President Joe Biden, his credibility started
slipping away, even in the eyes of skeptics like me. Now, we're learning he has a long history
of attempts to expose President Trump, including getting fired from the NSC for leaking
information to the press. His attachments to John Brennan, Adam Schiff, Susan Rice, and others
who have worked against the President is the cherry on top of the obliteration of his
credibility.
The more we learn about him, the easier it is to understand why Democrats have pulled back
on having him as part of the impeachment inquiry at all in spite of his whistleblower complaint
being the catalyst for the whole debacle.
The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the
new Republican president's foreign policies. "My recollection of Eric is that he was very
smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing –
Ukraine," he said. "He didn't exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was
the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the
president's policies." "So I wouldn't be surprised if he was the whistleblower," the official
said. In May 2017, Ciaramella went "outside his chain of command," according to a former NSC
co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting
with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the
Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had
phoned the president a week earlier.
It's clear Democrats want to distance their inquiry (and themselves) from Ciaramella because
he represents and unambiguous demonstration of the political motivations behind the Obama
administration's initial investigation into Russian collusion, the Mueller investigation, and
now the impeachment inquiry. Moving forward on impeachment based on the word of Ciaramella is
like initiating a study to prove tobacco is healthy because of a report presented by Philip
Morris.
Eric Ciaramella was a CIA analyst and expert on Ukraine and Russia. He was detailed to
the Obama White House NSC as Director of Baltic and Eastern European Affairs including
Ukraine. Ciaramella was a known Susan Rice protege. He is said to have traveled to
Ukraine with Vice President Joe Biden twice.
He was a close associate of State Department anti-Trump partisan Victoria Nuland.
Ciaramella was involved in the 2016 correspondence about the $1 billion dollar loan
guarantee Biden held up until prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired.
Ciaramella was said to be traveling with Biden on that trip.
He was certainly in the loop on all things Ukraine. Including disinformation on Paul
Manafort and Trump passed to Victoria Nuland by Ukrainian sources. Clinton donor Victor
Pinchuk sent Ukrainian Member of Parliament Olga Bielkova to meet with Ciaramella. One day
before Bielkova also met with infamous John McCain aide David Kramer.
Ciaramello is not confirmed as the whistleblower, but all circumstantial evidence points
squarely at him. We may never hear the official word on it because doing so would paint the
Democrats' impeachment narrative as one built like a house of cards.
The sheer fact the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, had attempted on multiple
occasions to frame the President is enough to destroy the entire impeachment narrative. This
is the boy who cried wolf every chance he got.
See also
Will John Bolton support impeachment to spite President Trump?
The biggest reason to reject opinions that Ukrainian aid was tied to a Biden
investigation
How the Army officer who testified against Trump could end up in a court-martial
When Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman appeared before members of Congress on Tuesday to discuss
what he knew about President Trump's conversations with Ukraine's president, he was
violating an order from his commander in chief not to cooperate with the House's
impeachment inquiry.
He is likely protected from legal ramifications from showing up to testify, a former Army
judge advocate told Military Times on Thursday. But it remains to be seen whether what he
told legislators could get him charged with a crime ― and, of course, how his choice
to rebel against his White House chain-of-command will affect his career.
...
It comes down to whether Trump's order was lawful, he said. If Trump was trying to prevent
Vindman from sharing sensitive information, it could be. If he was trying to prevent
testimony, period, it's not.
The Military Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits government officials from interfering
with a member of the military in communicating with Congress or an inspector general.
Adding to the complexity is that the president gets to determine what is and isn't
classified.
here
Cohen notes that the Russian press, which follows American politics closely, has resulted in
a consensus that all of this -- Russiagate, Ukrainegate -- was created to stop Trump from
having better relations with Russia. Thus, it is important that Putin had been told the reason
Trump cannot engage in détente is because of Trump being shackled.
Cohen noted that expert opinion in Russia -- which informs the Kremlin leadership, including
Putin -- has soured on the United States; the older generation of Russian America specialists
who like America, who visit regularly and appreciate American culture, have become utterly
disillusioned and cannot promote a Russian-American partnership given what has happened to
Trump.
Regarding Ukraine, Cohen notes it shares a very large border with Russia, tens of millions
of intermarriages, language, culture and history, and although the United States shares none of
this with Ukraine, the United States has declared Ukraine is a strategic ally, and this would
be equivalent to Russia stating that Mexico is its strategic ally, which is preposterous; the
term "strategic" clearly has military implications.
Your line of thinking might reflect the way some people in the US Establishment look on the
matter. However, this is militarily a non-starter. Attacking Russia with nuclear weapons
would immediately result in the disappearance of the USA.
IMHO, Ukraine and other countries has been a gift to corrupt US politicians. The money
they send to Ukraine never ends in the hands of those who are supposed to get it -- the
Ukrainian peoples (it is de facto several countries). The money is redirected into the hands
of US and Ukrainian politicians and Jewish oligarchs.
The weapons that are sent to Ukraine are largely sold off to countries in the Middle East
-- countries which in turn give them to terrorists on their payrolls. This money largely
benefits the upper echelons of the army of Ukraine.
Powerful elements amongst the US power elites and their hangers on wish to provoke a war with
Russia. The obtainment of total world power would seem to be the ultimate objective.
Z Brzizinski in his late 1990's book The Grand Chessboard specifically points out
the importance of Ukraine to US ambitions in Eurasia.
Excerpts below from an 1853 US geo-political book called The New Rome elaborate
further. I see the mid 19th century book and it's contents potentially as 'a suggestion'
being put into the US public's mind to let them know what was expected of them in the future,
and why, as most people in the US, then and now, are rather indifferent about Russia, just as
most Russians are probably indifferent about the United States.
Similarly, Russia could be being manipulated into a war with the US, a war which
potentially could largely destroy both the US and Russia, which indeed may be the idea as
part of a larger picture.
People have their refusal.
Has Mr Cohen read this generally unknown 1853 book, The New Rome ?
Some excerpts from The New Rome linked below:
US and UK are free, Russia is not.
pg 155
'Freedom is now limited to the oceanic world, to England and America; Russia, with its
continental dependencies, is despotic..'
After US and UK form a united front and conquer Germany (the center of power upon
continental Europe) and consolidate control over it, the US and Russia will then square
off.
pg 109
'Thus the lines are drawn. The choirs are marshalled on each wing of the world's stage,
Russia leading the one, the United States the other. Yet the world is too small for both, and
the contest must end in the downfall of the one and the victory of the other.'
Global projection of US air power is to be the key for final US victory over Russia.
pg.155-156
'It [air power] will give us the victory over Russian continentalism. American
air-privateers will be down upon the Russian garrisons, to use our own expressive slang,
'like a parcel of bricks'
Who transcribed the broadcast (Giraldi?). BTW, I regard the transcription as very fair and
accurate.
Listening to the very last stages of the broadcast I felt that Batchelor became somewhat
confrontational towards Cohen. As a matter of fact Cohen remarked that Batchelor will be
getting a lot of phone calls and emails over that!
Here is the obvious explanation.
Zio-Globalist led by Rothschild are dead set to destroy, or at least neutralize Russia.
Keep in mind another clear and obvious point: The Zio-Globalists now see the USA as
totally expendable. There is some sign they are throwing it to the curb right now.
To be fair, Netanyahu said as much years ago. America would be tossed when no longer
needed. Well, that day is coming close. Productive facilities leaving the nation is nearing
its half-century mark, and now even films and TV shows mostly film in Canada, the UK, etc.,
even though they are sold as US products, which they are mostly not.
Destroy and Russia and USA, part one. Get them to blame each other, part two. Three?
They'll both still have lots of bombs
@Ilyana_Rozumova
“Russia now is last resistance to Globalist control of all world.
China for Globalists is not really a problem. When Globalists will control Russia than China
will like it not, will be controlled by flow of energy.”
That is essentially the situation. If Russia is forced to be something close to a vassal
of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, then China will be faced with being forced into the same boat.
The Chinese might well prefer nuclear war, and unleashing 5 million men at arms, with another
5 million in training camps.
The leaders of the Anglo-Zionist Empire would not care a teeny tiny bit if Korea,
southeast Asia, the Philippines, and Japan were to be decimated. They would be tickled pink
to fill those lands with black Africans and Sunni Arabs, with Jews running the local
shows
@Baron
Ukraine is lebensraum . It has had little importance in geopolitical affairs until
Russia stupidly gave it its independence upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Now it’s
a slush fund for the most prominent Democrat politicians. It’s also become another
conveniently remote shithole for justifying insane military spending.
The only mistake Merry makes is his erroneous statement that Trump held up aid to Ukraine to
pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate the Ukrainian firm that made $1,750,000
payments to the corrupt Biden and his corrupt son. The transcript of the telephone call between
Trump and the Ukrainian president shows no Quid Pro Quo, and the Ukrainian president says there
was none. The Quid Pro Quo was entirely on Biden's part when he told the president of Ukraine
to fire the prosecutor investigating the firm that was paying him and his son seven figures in
protection money or forfeit $1 billion in US aid. You can watch it here:
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html
Moreover, even it Trump did threaten to withhold aid from a country that was covering up
corruption by a US vice president and his son, that is the US president's right. There is no
reason whatsoever that a president should permit US taxpayers' money to be given to a
government that covers up corruption by a vice president of the United States.
Biden's son has admitted that he used poor judgment taking money from a firm in order to
protect it from prosecution.
Even if Trump did what the Democrats allege, which he did not, there is nothing illegal or
unethical about it whatsoever. Compared to the tactics US prosecutors use to convict the
innocent, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine is far above the highest ethics
known to US prosecutors.
Why aren't the Democrats complaining about the criminally illegal treatment of Julian
Assange and Manning? The reason is that the Democrats, the most utterly corrupt political
organization on the face of the Earth, are bought and paid for by the Deep State. The Democrats
are dog excrement to the core. They are traitors to America and to our Constitutional order.
The entire party should be arrested and put on trial for sedition to overthrow the government
of the United States.
"Nancy Pelosi still doesn't believe in impeachment" [ The Week ]. "The problem with [Pelosi's] strategy of
impeachment in name only is that it is formally unstructured. What Pelosi and most of the
Democratic leadership understand as a cynical political stalling tactic is understood by much
of the party's younger rank-and-file membership -- to say nothing of the always credulous base
-- as a deathly serious mission to extirpate a tyrant from the republic.
The vote now scheduled for Thursday does not change the reality on the ground. According to
the letter Pelosi addressed to Democrats on Monday, the resolution -- the text of which has yet
to appear -- will be formal rather than substantive. Procedures will be established, a
framework agreed upon, documents requested. It will not bring the party closer to impeachment
itself. But it will remove a few more crucial pegs from the Jenga tower that will inevitably
fall at some point between now and November 2020 -- the hypothetical moment when refusing to
proceed further could actually threaten her leadership It turns out that if you want to enjoy
all the political benefits of attempting to impeach the president of the United States, sooner
or later you actually have to attempt to impeach him. Imagine that."
UPDATE "Republicans eye a shift in impeachment strategy as Trump demands new attacks" [
Politico ].
"There is a growing desire among Republicans to start building a more merit-based case to
defend Trump in the Ukraine scandal, according to a source familiar with the GOP's thinking
Republicans, however, still think they are on solid ground when it comes to their process
argument and aren't ready to drop that crusade entirely Trump's public defense will be left in
the hands of the nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee -- the fewest number of
GOP lawmakers to push back against the impeachment inquiry."
Eric Ciaramella is connected to Victoria Nuland. IIf this information is true, the entire Impeachment thing is a another phase
of Russiagate. It's the Democrats attempt at a coup d'etat
Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protégé and was brought into the White House by H. R. McMaster. Looks like McMaster was a
neocon zealot.
Rush Limbaugh knows the whistleblower's name. He says everyone in Washington does.
For obvious reasons, it's in the Democrats' best interests to keep the name under wraps. And
no Republican wants to be the first to report the name. Rush
said , "They're just trying to figure out a way to get it in the public. Kind of like
everybody knew about the Steele dossier but nobody knew how to get it into the public, so they
ran a scam on Trump to tell him about the golden showers story and, voila, that bogus dossier
makes it into the news."
Earlier today, I wrote a post about the most problematic part of Lt. Col. Alexander S.
Vindman's testimony. Speaking before Schiff's House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, he said
he had shared
read-outs of the call with others afterward. He had included this in his prepared remarks
as well. Vindman wrote that he had shared with "a
very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relative need to
know." I questioned if a member of this group might be the whistleblower. Or if not, perhaps a
member of this group told the whistleblower.
When Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) heard Vindman's statement, he immediately asked him how many
others he shared this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to
reporters following the hearing, Schiff said, "No, no, no, no, we're not going to let him
answer that question."
Schiff may think he can keep the whistleblower out of this. And the reporters accusing Jim
Jordan of trying to arrive at the whistleblower's name through the process of elimination may
also believe they can keep it quiet. But if everyone in Washington knows it, it can't remain
private forever.
Nor should it.
Anyway, Rush
said , Vindman "may be the guy -- we don't know -- Vindman may be the guy that told the
whistleblower. So Vindman would actually be silent whistleblower number 1. The whistleblower we
all know about would be whistleblower number 2. He's the guy that called Schiff. And they were
all working with Schiff. And Schiff doesn't want that to come out."
On Tuesday, The Daily Beast published a story entitled "Nunes Aide Is Leaking the
Ukraine Whistleblower's Name, Sources Say." The lede
says , "Derek Harvey, a former intelligence analyst, has also been spreading disinformation
about an aide to Adam Schiff." The article tells us this information has come from "two
knowledgeable sources."
According toThe Daily Beast:
Derek Harvey, who works for Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence
committee, has provided notes for House Republicans identifying the whistleblower's name
ahead of the high-profile depositions of Trump administration appointees and civil servants
in the impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the notes, one source said, is to get the
whistleblower's name into the record of the proceedings, which committee chairman Adam Schiff
has pledged to eventually release. In other words: it's an attempt to out the anonymous
official who helped trigger the impeachment inquiry.
Over the weekend, The Washington Post
reported that "GOP lawmakers and staffers have "repeatedly" used a name purporting to be
that of the whistleblower during the depositions."
There have been a number of recent articles in left-leaning publications accusing
Republicans of playing it fast and loose with the whistleblower's name. That's a problem for
Democrats because once it's known, and his or her connection (I think it's a he) to Schiff is
discovered, the air will start escaping from the repugnant representative's impeachment
balloon. Until it deflates just like the Mueller balloon did.
Republicans need to question the whistleblower under oath. Lindsey Graham, the Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena this individual.
One of the attorneys representing the whistleblower, Mark Zaid,
toldThe Daily Beast , "Exposing the identity of the whistleblower and attacking our
client would do nothing to undercut the validity of the complaint's allegations. What it would
do, however, is put that individual and their family at risk of harm.
Well, sorry darlin' – but that's just a risk we'll have to take.
Who
Is Eric Ciaramella? This morning in a comment, Mike Sylwester linked to a blog at American
Thinker that discussed possible "whistleblower" candidates: Who is the
whistleblower? Eric Ciaramella is the third candidate discussed. There's some shocking
material available about Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protege and was brought into the
White House by H. R. McMaster, a truly disastrous appointment. Of course I have no idea whether
Ciaramella is Sammy #1. I merely offer here some material re Ciaramella to show what Trump has
been up against throughout his first term. These are excerpts only--the portions that pertain
to Ciaramella--of longer blogs:
Ciaramella was involved in 2016 correspondence about $1 billion loan guarantee which Biden
had held up, pending firing of prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Ciaramella associate of Clintonista
neocon Victoria Nuland, whose name turns up too often, even re Steele https://t.co/vmkWBdjKU5 -- Stephen McIntyre
(@ClimateAudit)
Mc Master Caught Leaking to Make Himself Indespensible
On June 11, Cernovich posted again on Medium.
The Right News has a copy (emphasis mine):
Meet Eric Ciaramella -- H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal Aide
This is an explosive article, excerpted below (emphases in the original):
Ciaramella's ascension is surprising considering pro-Trump sources within the Obama
administration disclosed to me in December, 2016 that Ciaramella's helped draft Susan Rice's
anti-Trump talking points before the Inauguration .
In fall of 2016 as Obama's director for Ukraine on the NSC, Ciaramella was the main force
pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
Some suspect Ciaramella was one of the original leakers who told the media about classified
conversations Trump had with Russian diplomat Sergei Lavrov . While it's unproven that
Ciaramella leaked that conversation, it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every
conversation Trump has with foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster.
W hen this story first came to me, my question was, "This is a huge personnel move. Why
hasn't Politico run it?"
My sources told me other outlets passed on the story, because, "This isn't the type of
information the mainstream media wants out there ."
Note the second sentence in the third paragraph:
it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every conversation Trump has with
foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster.
Meet Eric
Ciaramella -- H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal
Aide W est Wing officials confirmed to Cernovich Media that Eric Ciaramella, who worked
closely with Susan Rice while at NSC , was recently promoted to be H.R. McMaster's personal
aide. Ciaramella will have unfettered access to McMaster's conversations with foreign leaders .
Ciaramella's ascension is surprising considering pro-Trump sources within the Obama
administration disclosed to me in December, 2016 that Ciaramella's helped draft Susan Rice's
anti-Trump talking points before the Inauguration . In fall of 2016 as Obama's director for
Ukraine on the NSC, Ciaramella was the main force pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
Some suspect Ciaramella was one of the original leakers who told the media about classified
conversations Trump had with Russian diplomat Sergei Lavrov . While it's unproven that
Ciaramella leaked that conversation, it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every
conversation Trump has with foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster. W
hen this story first came to me, my question was, "This is a huge personnel move. Why hasn't
Politico run it?" My sources told me other outlets passed on the story, because, "This isn't
the type of information the mainstream media wants out there ." Staunchly pro-Ukraine and
anti-Russia, Ciaramella is the media's dream, which explains why this high-profile personnel
move hasn't been covered in any mainstream media outlets. The only result for Ciaramella in
Google News is a 2015 article about a meeting of religious leaders from the Ukraine meeting
with Barack Obama.
EXCLUSIVE: Internet Abuzz – Schiff's Ukrainian Hoax Linked to Members of
Obama's NSC Including Eric Ciaramella and Charles Kupchan https://t.co/xyHFeyPp7U via
@gatewaypundit
From Wikipedia "Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian SSR , Soviet Union . [3] After the
death of their mother, the three-year-old twins and their older brother Leonid were brought to
New York in December 1979 by their father, Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's "
Little Odessa "
neighborhood" ... Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in
Eurasia. In this capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kyiv , Ukraine , and Moscow , Russia . Returning to Washington, D.C. he was then a
politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff . Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from September 2015 to
July 2018. [8] In July 2018, Vindman
accepted an assignment with the National Security Council. [9] In his role on the
NSC, Vindman became part of the U.S. delegation at the inauguration of the Ukraine's newly
elected President, Volodymyr Zelensky . The five member
delegation, led by Rick
Perry , United States Secretary of
Energy , also included Kurt Volker , then U.S. Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations, Gordon Sondland , United States
Ambassador to the European Union , and Joseph Pennington, then acting chargé d'affaires .
[10][11]
Here is the whistleblower on Trump's Ukraine call . Why is it that no matter what rock you
turn over there is a Jew underneath?
Who Is Alexander Vindman? A Ukrainian Refugee Turned White House Official Testifies in
the Impeachment Inquiry
He fled Ukraine at age 3 and became a soldier, scholar and official at the White House.
That's where, he told impeachment investigators, he witnessed alarming behavior by President
Trump.
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Oct. 29, 2019Updated 12:55 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- Alexander S. Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, were 3 years old when
they fled Ukraine with their father and grandmother, Jewish refugees with only their
suitcases and $750, hoping for a better life in the United States
On Tuesday, Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a Director of National Security Affairs at the
National Security Council, testified before Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee.
Vindman, a direct witness to the July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, is considered the White House's "Ukraine expert." He was so
troubled by the call that he
reported his concerns to the NSC's lead counsel, John A. Eisenberg.
I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S.
citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of
Ukraine. Following the call, I reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel
I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country,
irrespective of party or politics
For over 20 years as an active-duty United States military officer and diplomat, I have
served this country in a nonpartisan manner, and have done so with the utmost respect and
professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations.
There were several troubling aspects to Vindman's testimony. First, according to the New
York Times , after viewing the White House rough transcript of the call, he noticed there
were several omissions. For example, Zelensky had referred to Ukrainian natural gas company
Burisma
, and that name did not appear in the transcript. Burisma, had been under investigation in
2015-2016 by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. At that time, Vice President Joe
Biden's son, Hunter, served on the company's board. Knowing that Shokin was about to question
his son, Biden famously threatened that he would withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless Shokin
was fired. The other major omission was " Trump's
assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
discussing Ukraine corruption."
Vindman testified that he had tried to have those items put back into the call transcript,
but had failed. At first, news that he had tried to tamper with the rough transcript sent off
alarm bells among Republicans. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed and this issue was said to be
minor.
A lot of verified conservatives I otherwise like, who were salivating over this story last
night, should probably think about not eating out of Schiff's selectively leaking hand next
time. https://t.co/6GyqaQfQuT
The more concerning issue with Vindman's testimony was his admission that he had shared
read-outs of the call with others afterward. You can well imagine that Republican ears
perked up when they heard this. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Vindman how many others he shared
this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to reporters following the
hearing, Schiff said, "No, no, no, no, we're not going to let him answer that question."
This is extremely problematic. If Schiff had not stopped the witness from answering the
question, Jordan would have asked who exactly were the individuals he gave this information to.
It's possible that one of them is the whistleblower.
Reporters accused Jordan of trying to find out the name of the whistleblower through the
process of elimination.
So what!
We should know the name of the whistleblower. The so-called "whistleblower" set off a
national firestorm. He doesn't get to remain anonymous.
The fact that Vindman shared the read-outs with others after the call led Fox News '
Catherine Herridge to wonder if he had violated 18 USC 798 .
the federal leaking statute , by doing so.
In the clip below, Herridge explains that presidential phone calls are classified, so if
Vindman shared it with an individual who was not authorized to receive it, he may have
potentially violated the law. In his prepared statement, he indicates he shared it with "a
very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relative need to
know."
It is important for Republicans to find out who these individuals are. It may be that they
are all properly cleared. It may also be that one of them spoke to the whistleblower.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schiff have handled the impeachment inquiry, that Pelosi says
is not an impeachment inquiry, poorly. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that Schiff is trying "to
run a one-sided, Soviet style process that we've never seen before."
Last night, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Sean Hannity. He
said :
I have never in my life seen anything like what happened today, during the testimony of
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
It was unprecedented. I mean, they've been bad at most of these depositions, but to
interrupt us continually to coach the witness, to decide what we're going to be able to ask
the witness.
And, to see someone coach a witness, this isn't the first time that Schiff -- Schiff is
very good at coaching witnesses.
All I can say is that the American people are watching, and with the exception of the
Democratic base, no one is too impressed.
"... The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia ..."
"... Honestly, the more that emerges, the more I wonder under what inducements Mueller consented to figurehead this steaming heap of offal. (The rest of the gang at least had the excuse of assuming Clinton would win, but Mueller agrees to step into it, through the tainted subterfuge of Comey's no less, once Trump was already elected.) ..."
"... And then there's Ukraine. I know PL has just stressed the impropriety of a uniformed officer detailed to the NSC doing what he's done -- because he disagrees with the President's policy on Eastern Europe, by his own admission, which includes urging Zelensky to investigate those allied with the Borg in Ukraine for attempting to influence the outcome of the election in favour of Clinton. ..."
"... A shame Trump couldn't just leave the Biden investigation to the professionals, but then maybe he's having trouble trusting his subordinates. Wonder why. ..."
"... Fred -> indus56... , 30 October 2019 at 03:19 PM ..."
"... The "professionals" ensured the Burisma investigation was closed by the prior Ukraine government. By all means cover up corruption at the top of the Obama administration. Kompromat would never happen there. BTW I wonder if Pussy Riot will be joining the band of the same name at their next concert? https://www.infoconcert.com/artiste/kompromat-175468/concerts.html ..."
"... catherine said in reply to indus56... , 30 October 2019 at 04:54 PM ..."
"... Is it normal procedure to edit phone call memos? ..."
"... National security official tells Congress he tried to add edits to White House memo about Trump Ukraine call ..."
"... The proposed edits of the call were to include Trump mentioning possible recordings of Joe Biden discussing corruption in Ukraine and Ukraine's president mentioning the Burisma gas company specifically. ..."
"... Shame on the FBI for many failings in their handling of the Steele report. Of course the Agents responsible for evaluating the report knew that Sater was an informant or asset; but the report reeks of bullshit anyway. ..."
"... "Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively,.." "Trusted compatriot... sources A and B... senior...figure... former...(but) still active..." what does this nonsense even mean? Specifics? To use the word specifics to describe what is being put on offer is a joke. Those specifics wouldn't serve to predicate a FISC wire on Joe Shit the Ragman let alone a candidate for President of the United States. ..."
"... There should have been no action taken on Steele's offerings absent Steele's fully identifying every source cited in his document, the precise circumstances surrounding their receipt of the information, the precise circumstances of Steele's receipt of the information from the so called sources, and either access to the sources themselves or. damn good reason why not. ..."
"... The Agents not pinning this guy down knowing that he was a paid political operative doing Oppo research makes the whole thing truly shocking. It's going to be very telling if and when the files come out that were used to administer the handling not only of Sater but also Steele. ..."
"... ex PFC Chuck , 30 October 2019 at 03:44 PM ..."
"... Although he may be a pariah to some who hang out here, during a recent interview with Joe Rogan Edward Snowden offered some intriguing views of the Borg/Deep State from his experience and perspective. He sees it as a conglomeration of interest groups inside and outside of the government who have interests that sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate. The video is over 2 hours long, and it's almost all Snowden talking and very little of Rogan. ..."
To appreciate the lies and corruption that are the foundation of the conspiracy to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump by the
FBI, the CIA and the DNI, one need only look at how Robert Mueller lied about FBI informants who were targeting the Trump team.
Let us look specifically at Felix Sater. Felix Sater has been a fully signed up Confidential Human Source for the FBI since 1998.
His original plea deal was signed off on by Mueller's deputy, Andrew Weismann. But you would not know any of this if you relied solely
on the Mueller Report.
Here is how Mueller portrays Sater:
In approximately September 2015, Felix Sater, a New York based real estate advisor, contacted Michael Cohen, then-executive vice
president of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald J. Trump. Sater had previously worked with the Trump Organization
and advised it on a number of domestic and international projects. Sater had explored the possibility of a Trump Tower project in
Moscow while working with the Trump Organization and therefore knew of the organization's general interest in completing a deal there.
This is fundamentally dishonest. Sater was more than a mere "real estate advisor" who had previously worked with Trump. He was
and is a fully signed up FBI Confidential Human Source. Not my opinion. It is a fact. An excellent article by Newsweek reporter Bill
Powell, Donald Trump Associate Felix Sater Is Linked
to the Mob and the CIA -- What's His Role in the Russia Investigation? , provides an excellent review of Sater's history and
involvement with the FBI. One of the surprising revelations from Powell is that Felix Sater was a childhood friend of Michael Cohen,
Trump's lawyer. Let that sink in for a moment. The FBI informant, Felix Sater, was a long time friend of Cohen.
Sater was playing a role scripted by the FBI and deliberately designed to feed the meme that Trump was dealing with the Russians.
The covert op to paint Trump as a Russian stooge was not left to Sater alone. Christopher Steele, a British spy who was hired
by Fusion GPS, conveniently produced a report insisting that the Russians were working overtime to get Trump in bed with them on
"lucrative real estate deals." The Steele report dated 20 June 2016 makes the following claims:
Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level
Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting
US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for at least 5 years. . . .
In terms of specifics, Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,
including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years (see more below). . . .
The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business
deals in Russia , especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. How ever, so far, for reasons unknown,
TRUMP had not taken up any of these.
Pay attention. Who offered Trump the deal in Moscow? FELIX SATER. Was he a Russian agent? No. He was the FBI's Joe.
If the Steele Dossier was true, Trump should have had multiple offers for projects on in Russia, especially Moscow. Steele claims
Putin's people were feeding Trump information and opportunity. So where is the evidence of such activity? There is none. Just Felix
Sater, FBI snitch.
Robert Mueller tried in vain to advance the lie that Trump was doing deals in Moscow. His report states:
In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately
September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen (i.e., Michael Cohen) on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert),
a Russian real-estate development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov. Sater had known Rozov since approximately
2007 and, in 2014, had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov's purchase of a building in New York City. Sater later
contacted Rozov and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and
brand from the Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee
of I.C. Expert. (see page 69 of the Mueller Report).
Who was pushing the project in Moscow? FELIX SATER. Not Michael Cohen and certainly not Donald Trump. Sater was the instigator.
At no time did he testify that he was directed by Trump or anyone else in the Trump organization to reachout to the Russians. And
don't forget what Christopher Steele claimed -- the Russians were in a frenzy supposedly to offer Trump lucrative deals. That was
and is a monumental lie.
Sater was and is an FBI informant. Sater was not just a private entrepreneur looking to make some coin. We know without a doubt
that Sater was a fully signed up FBI informant. Sater's status as an FBI snitch was first exposed in 2012 (you can read the letter
confirming Sater's status as an FBI snitch
here ). Another inconvenient
fact excluded from the Mueller report is that one of Mueller's Chief Prosecutors,
Andrew Weissman,
signed the deal with Felix Sater in December 1998 that put Sater into the FBI Informant business . Sater was used multiple times
in the next decade by the FBI to make cases against Russian spies and mobsters.
How could Robert Mueller neglect to mention this critical fact? This was not the oversight of a senile old man. It was deliberate
obfuscation.
The question that prosecutor Robert Durham needs to ask is who directed Sater to pitch the Trump team in September 2015 to pursue
a deal in Moscow? The answer probably lies in Sater's FD-1023s. A 1023 is a report that an FBI agent must file every time he meets
with a Confidential Human Source. This was an orchestrated attempt to set up Donald Trump as a Russian stooge. But it did not start
in July 2016 as the FBI falsely claims. It started in September 2015. Who authorized this?
Add to the curious terminology used by the guy setting up the Trump Tower meeting with the female lawyer who promised dirt on
Clinton - he described her as the "Crown Prosecutor" for Russia (no such thing)- more likely also on M16's payroll working in
cahoots with Brennan and the CIA?
I'm not sure if LJ is presenting anything new here on Sater, though it's damning enough to merit a refresh. I suppose many reading
this for the second time will, as I do, feel impatient that this has been out there for some time, and nothing official has yet
come of it, from Horowitz or Durham. Perhaps that impatience is fuelled by what appears to be a repeat performance using the same
comic-opera playbill, this time with Ukraine. I recognize that the wheels of justice grind slowly; the Borg can manufacture these
colour-tempests much more quickly, and so continue to control the news cycles (in addition to controlling the news).
Honestly, the more that emerges, the more I wonder under what inducements Mueller consented to figurehead this steaming
heap of offal. (The rest of the gang at least had the excuse of assuming Clinton would win, but Mueller agrees to step into it,
through the tainted subterfuge of Comey's no less, once Trump was already elected.)
Nor is it easy to maintain confidence in Barr through the rumbling over his role in Iran Contra, the family connections with
the CIA, with its attendant opportunities to develop kompromat to hold over the family. Then there's Horowitz's reputation for
playing softball...
And then there's Ukraine. I know PL has just stressed the impropriety of a uniformed officer detailed to the NSC doing
what he's done -- because he disagrees with the President's policy on Eastern Europe, by his own admission, which includes urging
Zelensky to investigate those allied with the Borg in Ukraine for attempting to influence the outcome of the election in favour
of Clinton.
A shame Trump couldn't just leave the Biden investigation to the professionals, but then maybe he's having trouble trusting
his subordinates. Wonder why.
The "professionals" ensured the Burisma investigation was closed by the prior Ukraine government. By all means cover up
corruption at the top of the Obama administration. Kompromat would never happen there. BTW I wonder if Pussy Riot will be joining
the band of the same name at their next concert? https://www.infoconcert.com/artiste/kompromat-175468/concerts.html
National security official tells Congress he tried to add edits to White House memo about Trump Ukraine call
The proposed edits of the call were to include Trump mentioning possible recordings of Joe Biden discussing corruption
in Ukraine and Ukraine's president mentioning the Burisma gas company specifically.
Shame on the FBI for many failings in their handling of the Steele report. Of course the Agents responsible for evaluating
the report knew that Sater was an informant or asset; but the report reeks of bullshit anyway.
"Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top
level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively,.." "Trusted compatriot... sources A and B...
senior...figure... former...(but) still active..." what does this nonsense even mean? Specifics? To use the word specifics to
describe what is being put on offer is a joke. Those specifics wouldn't serve to predicate a FISC wire on Joe Shit the Ragman
let alone a candidate for President of the United States.
There should have been no action taken on Steele's offerings absent Steele's fully identifying every source cited in his
document, the precise circumstances surrounding their receipt of the information, the precise circumstances of Steele's receipt
of the information from the so called sources, and either access to the sources themselves or. damn good reason why not.
The Agents not pinning this guy down knowing that he was a paid political operative doing Oppo research makes the whole
thing truly shocking. It's going to be very telling if and when the files come out that were used to administer the handling not
only of Sater but also Steele.
Although he may be a pariah to some who hang out here, during a recent interview with Joe Rogan Edward Snowden offered some
intriguing views of the Borg/Deep State from his experience and perspective. He sees it as a conglomeration of interest groups
inside and outside of the government who have interests that sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate. The video is over 2 hours
long, and it's almost all Snowden talking and very little of Rogan.
In Chile, a country of around 17 million people, more than 1 million people r out in the
streets of capital Santiago protesting neoliberalism and the US-friendly govt's repression of
protest. The Western media are curiously silent about the scale of the uprising. #
ChileDesperto
... ... ...
Once again, protests in 22 countries is rather a lot (and these, as it were,
the wildfires, not small flare-ups here and there). But note that none of the sources
(including me, "L.S.") have a consistent list; it's extraordinary that Bloomberg, which is an
actual new gathering organization, omits Haiti, and that Human Rights Watch (HRW) omits France
(since the
state violence deployed against the gilet jaunes has been significant, far me so
than Hong Kong).
So how are we to make sense of these protests? The Dean, we might call her, of studies in
non-violent protest (and hence of the violence that accompanies or suppresses it) is Erica
Chenoweth, so we will begin with her (I would classify her as an academic rather than an
advocate, like Gene Sharp.) From there, we will broaden out to look at how the data that any
academic -- and, one would think, news-gathering organizations -- would use. Finally, we'll
look at what the previous two academic approaches do not really consider: The social basis of
protests as a predictor of success.
She speculates that the cause of the this decline is due to Authoritarian Adaptation:
the ability of authoritarian governments to adopt more politically savvy repressive tools
may be part of
the reason for the decline in success rates in the past six years. 21 .
Authoritarian leaders have begun to
develop and systematize sophisticated techniques to undermine and thwart nonviolent
activists.
Chenoweth provides this table, categorizing these techniques:
table l Methods of authoritarian adaptation against nonviolent resistance 2
*
Strategies to Reinforce Elite Loyalty
• Pay off the inner entourage
•Co-optoppositionists
• Use public brutality against accused defectors to deter further defections
Strategies to Suppress or Undermine the Movement
• Use direct violence against dissidents or their associates
• Counter-mobilize one's own supporters
• Plant plain-clothes police and agents provocateurs
• Solicit the help of paramilitary groups and pro-state armed militias
• Infiltrate the movement and engage in surveillance
• Pass pseudo-legitimate laws and practices that criminalize erstwhile legal
behaviors
• Add administrative and financial burdens to civil society groups
Strategies to Reinforce Support among the Public and Other Observers
• Blame foreigners and outsiders
• Mischaracterize domestic oppositionists as terrorists, traitors, coup plotters,
or
communists
• Conceal information through censorship and spin
• Remove foreign journalists from the country
21. There may be several other reasons for this decline in effectiveness. First, because
non-violent resistance has become such a popular and widespread practice, it is possible that
those wielding it do not yet have the requisite skill sets to ensure victory. For example,
Kurt Weyland has shown that radicals in various European capitals mobilized against their
dynastic sovereigns with a sense of false optimism , having witnessed a successful
revolution in France in February of 1848 (Kurt Weyland, 'The Diffusion of Revolution: "1848"
in Europe and Latin America,' International Organization 63/3:391–423 (2009)). They
essentially drew what Weyland calls "rash conclusions" about their own prospects for success
and attempted to import the French revolutionary model into their own contexts, failing
miserably. Second, a higher proportion of nonviolent uprisings since 2010 possess
"violent flanks" -- segments or groups within the campaign that destroy property,
engage in street fighting, or use lethal violence alongside a predominantly nonviolent
movement -- than in previous decades. Violent flanks tend to undermine participation rates in
nonviolent movements while discouraging security force defections (see Erica Chenoweth and
Kurt Schock, 'Do Contemporaneous Armed Challenges Affect the Out-comes of Mass Nonviolent
Campaigns?' Mobilization: An International Quarterly 20/4: 427–451 (2015)). Whereas the
most successful decades of nonviolent resistance featured highly disciplined campaigns of
nonviolent action, today almost 50% of primarily nonviolent campaigns possess some degree of
violent activity from within .
Chenoweth's strictures on "violent flanks" may apply to Hong Kong (though it is also true
that the Hong Kong protesters have achieved their first goal, the withdrawal of the of the
extradition bill). However, we should also remember the protester's spray-painted slogan: "
It was you who taught me that peaceful marches are useless ." We have yet to see. Perhaps
practice has outrun the academics. Perhaps not. We will look at this issue more tomorrow;
obviously, it applies to Chile.
Data Gathering (Fisher, et al.)
Chenoweth's dataset of "major episodes of contention, 1/1/1900–5/1/2016" includes 237
non-violent and 235 violent cases. But if we seek to record and classify protests in near real
time, there will be orders of magnitude more cases than that. Two projects to do just that are
described by Dana R. Fisher, Kenneth T. Andrews, Neal Caren, Erica Chenoweth, Michael T.
Heaney, Tommy Leung, L. Nathan Perkins, and Jeremy Pressman in " The science of contemporary street
protest: New efforts in the United States " (Science Advances, October 23, 2019). This is a
fascinating article, which I encourage all big data fans to read in full. From the
abstract:
This article reviews the two most central methods for studying street protest on a large
scale: building comprehensive event databases and conducting field surveys of participants at
demonstrations.
Of event databases, they write:
Tracking protest events in real time is fundamentally a discovery and coding problem. It
resembles the data collection components of past efforts to study protest by aggregating data
from third-party sources (51, 54). Unique to today's environment is the sheer number of
sources and the time-limited nature of the discovery-and-review period: Given the transience
of information on the internet compared to print media, thousands of sources produce reports
of variable reliability on a daily basis. Researchers must archive and extract information
such as where, when, and why a protest took place, as well as how many people attended,
before that content is moved behind a paywall, deleted, or otherwise made unavailable.
(Encouragingly, the event database is a citizen science effort.) However:
these event-counting methods also have several reliability, coding, and discovery
limitations and challenges, including (i) resolving discrepancies in reported data, such as
crowd size, for the same event reported by multiple sources; (ii) evaluating the reliability
and bias of each source; (iii) requiring manual review of what can be hundreds of potential
protest reports every day; (iv) accurately and consistently coding events in near real time;
and (v) having an incomplete list of sources and an incomplete list of reports from known
sources.
Of field surveys, Fisher et al. write:
The complex environment of a protest leads researchers to focus their attention on several
considerations that are not common in many other types of surveys. First, it is impossible to
establish a sampling frame based on the population, as the investigator does not have a list
of all people participating in an event; who participates in a protest is not known until the
day of the event; and no census of participants exists. Working without this information, the
investigator must find a way to elicit a random sample in the field during the event. Second,
crowd conditions may affect the ability of the investigator to draw a sample. The ease or
difficulty of sampling depends on whether the crowd is stationary or moving, whether it is
sparse or dense, and the level of confrontation by participants. Stationary, sparse crowds
that are peaceful and not engaged in confrontational tactics (such as civil disobedience, or
more violent tactics, like throwing items at the police) tend to be more conducive to
research. In general, the presence of police, counter-protesters, or violence by
demonstrators are all likely to make it more difficult to collect a sample. Third and last,
weather is an important factor. Weather conditions, such as rain, snow, or high temperatures,
may interfere with the data collection process and the crowd's willingness to participate in
a survey.
The Women's March after Trump was elected was one subject of surveys:
In her book American Resistance , Fisher examined seven of the largest protests
in Washington, DC, associated with opposition to President Trump: the 2017 Women's March, the
March for Science, the People's Climate March, the March for Racial Justice, the 2018 Women's
March, the March for Our Lives, and Families Belong Together (81). Her results show that the
Resistance was disproportionately female (at least 54%), highly educated (with more than 70%
holding a bachelor's degree), majority white (more than 62%), and had an average adult age of
38 to 49 years. Further, she found that the Resistance is almost entirely left-leaning in its
political ideology (more than 85%). Resistance participants were motivated to march by a wide
range of issues, with women's rights, environmental protection, racial justice, immigration,
and police brutality being among the more common motivations (83). She also found that
participants did not limit their activism to marching in the streets, as more than half of
the respondents had previously contacted an elected official and more than 40% had attended a
town hall meeting
I think Thomas Frank would recognize "the Resistance," although Fisher seems to have an odd
concept of what "the left" might mean. For example, there's no mention of strengthening unions,
the minimum wage, or the power of billionaries, so I wonder what her coding practices were.
The authors conclude -- as a good academic should do! -- with a call for further
research:
Moving forward, best practices will require forming teams of scholars that are
geographically dispersed in a way that corresponds with the distribution of the events under
investigation. While previous studies have concentrated on conducting surveys in different
regions and in major cities, the datasets would be more representative if data were collected
in multiple locations simultaneously in a way that represents smaller cities, suburbs, and
rural areas.
Consider an event projected to take place in 300 cities simultaneously in the United
States or Europe. Suppose that the target areas were stratified into 12 regions or countries.
If a survey was conducted in three types of locations -- one city, one suburb, and one rural
site or one capital, one college town, and one urban area with neither a capital nor a
university -- in each region, that would require the survey to go into the field in 36
locations (or roughly 12% of events). Such a task would likely require a minimum of 12 to 36
scholars working together, each coordinating research teams to collect survey data at events
in their region. Even more resources and institutionalization would be required to conduct
crowd surveys at a genuine random sample of events.
Beyond collaboration among multiple scholars, scaling up the administration of surveys
would also require standardization of the instrument, sampling, and practices in entering and
coding the survey data.
Ironically, the scale of the effort to survey and record such an event -- say, each scholar
would have a team of 10, for a total of 360, would be within an order of magnitude or so of
that required to organize it! (There were 24,000 Bolsheviks in 1917). What this
article does show, however, is how blind the public and the press are flying (though doubtless
the various organs of state security have better information.)
We further develop the argument that opposition movements dominated by industrial workers
or the urban middle classes have both the requisite motivation and capacity to bring
about
democratization . We clarify how and why the social composition of opposition movements
affects democratization. We expect that both the urban middle classes and, especially,
industrial workers have the requisite motivation and capacity to engender democratization, at
least in fairly urban and industrialized societies.
Other social groups -- even after mobilizing in opposition to the regime -- often lack the
capacity to sustain large-scale collective action or the motivation to pursue democracy. We
collect data on the social composition of opposition movements to test these expectations,
measuring degree of participation of six major social groups in about 200 antiregime
campaigns globally from 1900 to 2006. Movements dominated by industrial workers or middle
classes are more likely to yield democratization, particularly in fairly urbanized societies.
Movements dominated by other groups, such as peasants or military personnel, are not
conducive to democratization, even compared to situations without any opposition
mobilization. When separating the groups, results are more robust for industrial worker
campaigns
The capacities of protestors are found in their leverage and in their abilities to
coordinate and maintain large-scale collective action. Leverage comes from the power
resources that a group can draw on to inflict various costs on the autocratic regime and thus
use to extract concessions, including political liberalization. Leverage can come from the
ability to impose economic costs on the regime, through measures such as moving capital
assets abroad or carrying out strikes in vital sectors. Other sources of leverage include
access to weapons, manpower with relevant training, and militant ideologies that motivate
recruits. Urban middle classes score high on leverage in many societies. Many urban
professionals occupy inflection points in the economy, such as finance. Industrial workers
can also hold a strategic stranglehold over the economy, being able to organize nationwide or
localized strikes targeting key sources of revenue for the regime. In addition, workers often
have fairly high military potential, due to military experience (e.g., under mass
conscription) and, historically, often being related to revolutionary, sometimes
violence-condoning, ideologies (Hobsbawm 1974).
Riots and uprisings are often fleeting, and opposition movements are therefore more
frequent than regime changes. Hence, in addition to leverage, protestors must be able to
organize and maintain large-scale collective action over time, also after an initial
uprising, in order to challenge the regime. In this regard, groups with permanent,
streamlined organizations can effectively transmit information, monitor participants, and
disperse side payments. Organizations also help with recruiting new individuals, networking
with foreign actors, and experimenting with and learning effective tactics. The urban middle
classes have some potent assets in this regard, as they include members with high human
capital, which might enhance organizational skills. Various civil society, student, and
professional organizations can help mobilize at least parts of the middle classes. Industrial
workers typically score very high on organizational capacity (see Collier 1999; Rueschemeyer
et al. 1992). They are often organized in long-standing and comprehensive unions and labor
parties and have extensive networks, including international labor organizations and the
Socialist International. In sum, we expect opposition movements dominated by the middle
classes or industrial workers to be related to subsequent democratization. Yet, we anticipate
a clearer relationship for industrial worker campaigns, due to their multiple sources of
leverage and especially strong organizational capacity allowing for effective and sustained
challenges to the regime.
Lots to ponder here, including the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a quintessentially
"urban middle class" protest, the Women's March, potential differences between Hong Kong and
(say) Chile, and much much more -- including the operational capacities of our own working
class, and the effects of deindustrialization and gutting unions. I wonder of the condition of
teeth, as a class marker, is included in any survey coding?
Conclusion
I hope this survey of the literature has been stimulating. I will have more to say about
invididual protests tomorrow.
NOTES
[1] I'm super-uncomfortable with the "responsibility to protect" framing (which is why so
much of the focus of the article is on state violence, presumably as a justification for the
U.S. to intervene). That suggests to me that Chenoweth runs with the wrong crowd, at least part
of the time.
Back in 2004 I had a few friends working in a film shot during the RNC convention
protests. It made headlines because actress Rosario Dawson was arrested (police thought she
was an anarchist protestor). The film shoot had footage of an undercover police officer
posing as a protestor starting scuffles and trying to rile up other protestors.
It was written up in The NY Times but people still act as if this is crazed conspiracy
talk.
Of interest is the underlying assumption in the Conclusion of your post; that pre-existing
exposure to sub-national group organizing is positive towards successful outcomes. In most
situations, a Union is organized against strong countervailing pressures from the Owner
class. A winnowing out process that concentrates and toughens successful organizers has
already occurred. As it were, protests that draw on extant Union personnel have an automatic
advantage. An entire step in the organization formation process has been rendered irrelevant.
Access to "off the shelf" organizers will jump start a movement.
As a corollary to the above, I note the absence of an even semi-professional class of
agitators in the United States. Not so do I note an absence of outright professional Organs
of the State: Oppressors.
A century ago, the world had several international organizations seriously dedicated to the
subversion and overthrow of "Free Market" Capitalism. Today?
A century ago, the world had several international organizations seriously dedicated to
the subversion and overthrow of "Free Market" Capitalism.
True, and that complicates the studies Lambert cites in at least two ways.
1. In what Lambert reports, and I think he's got the drift of their arguments, the
distinction between violent and nonviolent movements ignores the way in which nonviolent
movements have deployed the threat of violence precisely by offering themselves as a
nonviolent alternative. Within the Civil Rights movement in this country "if you don't
listent to us, you'll get them" was part of King's message to white elites, with "them"
referring to everyone from Malcolm X to the revolutionary elements of international Marxism.
Others with a better understanding of India's independence movement could find a
parallel.
2. Running in the opposite direction, international movements, particularly on the left,
have often been a brake on local initiative. The Trotskyist critique of Stalinist practice,
wherein the Stalinist international imposed, often murderously, controls on national
communist parties to avoid (overly) antagonizing the bourgeois international, is at least
historically accurate, however much one might dispute its strategic validity. This isn't so
immediately relevant to the violent/nonviolent question, but it does help foreground the
international context that the summarized articles appear to lose track of.
Especially due to (1) the data behind the graph needs a good review for 'interactive
effects' of this sort.
3 weeks ago I witnessed a large protest on the streets of Seoul, I'd think at least 50,000
people. But it was mostly elderly folk and very right wing, essentially protesting at what
they see as Government policies that are too pro Chinese and pro North Korean. The protests
were clearly well financed and organized – the banners were mass produced and
'non-official' ones were almost all pushed to the fringes. Locals were contemptuous, saying
they'd all been paid to turn up and bussed in from the provinces. There were smaller protests
on other days. All were peaceful.
I also saw the aftermath of a very big protest in Hong Kong A few days before. There was a
lot less damage than you'd think from the international reporting, a few shops burnt out. But
I was left with little doubt that there was a lot of 'silent' support among regular HKers and
even ethnic Chinese (mainlanders) for the protests.
The winners write history. Surviving losers also rewrite history ('Gone with the Wind").
Or, past lives are never written about at all. The problem is that western government has
swirled down the drain into incompetent delusion. Corporations rule. Plutocrats are in combat
over the spoils. Protests won't work until police and mercenaries realized that they aren't
being paid enough to die or to subjugate their own families.
Right now, the problem is two million Californians forced out of their homes or waiting
with no electricity for evacuation orders. The American government is simply incapable
rebuilding Puerto Rico or Northern California. Or handling global plagues such as African
Swine Fever that has already killed a quarter of the global pig population. Simply put,
climate change, overpopulation, and rising inequality assure that revolutions cannot be
orderly.
The 10% Technocrats like Elizabeth Warren will try to keep things running until they can't
anymore.
I don't see how the protests in Spain by Catalan nationalists are a case of political
freedom.
If you believe that the right of self determination means that countries like Spain are
divisible, then why not also allow Catalonia to also be divisible? And let people in every
city, town, street, and house be able to decide which country they want to split off or
join?
I would have complete sympathy if Catalans were protesting against any legitimate
oppression regarding their language or culture, or any other related discrimination. Why
don't more Catalans simple work with others in Spain and the EU to make it more equal, fair,
and just, than give in to racist nationalism?
The modern world simply cannot afford to allow nationists to split up the world into
smaller pieces, which often leads to wars, ethnic cleansing, and additional oppression of any
remaining "non-pure" people.
This is a good question for which the stupidity of brainless nationalism has no answer
(nationalism musn't be brainless but too often it is). In reality this is more an struggle
for political power rather than fight for rights. And of course, although less noisy, there
are many catalans that don't give a damn on independence. Only, or as many as, 42%
of catalans ask for a referendum on independence but a larger majority prefers
negotiations on autonomy.
One would think that brexit is a good example of what could go wrong on badly thougth
procedures of independence but blind nationalism, always believes in its exceptionality. You
can compare the Torras and Puigdemont of the moment as illuminated as Jonhson or Blair in
their own moments: feeling incapable of wrong doing and above procedure rules. A recipe for
disaster if they ever prevail.
As an example we have Mr. Utility Friendly Torras, current president of the Generalitat,
going his way on energy policy and giving still validity in Catalonia to an anachronic decree
approved in Spain by his co-religionary Rajoy (but hated because, you know, spanish) in 2009
–and now derogued– that was a stop signal for the development of renewables. This
occurs even when the Parliament od Catalonia has already repealed the decree. Shows the kind
of respect this great leader has for procedures when anything does not align with his
ideas.
If Gazans wanted political freedom, they'd be rioting against Hamas, which has refused to
hold general elections for eight years and kills its political opponents and civilians who
object to their policies. What they really want is dead Jews.
The Gazans are in a tough spot. The surrounding states view the Gazan situation as a spur
in the flank of Israel. The constant threat of the descendants of those Arabs 'ethnically
cleansed' out of the whole of Palestine in 1947 being sent into Israel to reclaim their
ancestral lands is a constant in the Arab state's permanent conflict with the State of
Israel.
The alternative offered to the Gazans is to become permanent second class citizens in a
Greater Israel. Actually, make that third class citizens. At present, Israel has First Class,
comprised of the Orthodox religious Jews, Second Class, comprising the Secular Jews, and
Third Class, all others.
As for self rule, with a dollop of actual democracy, well, easier said than done.
" Violent flanks tend to undermine participation rates in nonviolent movements while
discouraging security force defections"
Ecuador and Chile pose a challenge to that theory. The events there are significant in
themselves, because traditionally, capturing the capital constitutes victory, whether a
revolution or an invasion. In Ecuador, that was clearcut: the demonstrators – not very
non-violent – controlled the capital and drove the government out of it, then continued
a rampage against government buildings. The president, from Guayaquil, ordered the military
to remove them – which didn't happen, probably for ethnic reasons. As before, this was
essentially an Indian uprising. Moreno caved, which means he can't meet his agreement with
the IMF. This was the IMF riot to end all. And we were just talking about retiring in
Ecuador.
In Chile, more than a million people in the street have essentially captured the capital,
as the videos make clear. Nothing is going to move, short of extreme violence. Again, the
president capitulated and undertook to meet the demonstrators' demands. That one wasn't
really non-violent, either, though the culminating demonstration was.
In both cases, victory is somewhat qualified because the right-wing president remains; the
real result remains to be seen – but notice has been served. If that process continued
much further, he could be lynched in the street. (I do wonder why Chile re-elected a
right-winger, only a year ago. They now have to reverse an election.)
And looking at the map: the US isn't there. A hyper-violent police force alienated from
the public might be a factor.
> Ecuador and Chile pose a challenge to that theory
I think Chenoweth's perspective could be a bit US-centric, or academic-centric. I have to
admit that one reason I agreed with her is that the black bloc's role in Occupy was so
pernicious (with "diversity of tactics" being on a par with "innovation" and "sharing" for
seamy tendentiousness). I think in the United States we are not ready, as it were,
for "violent flanks."
So when I started following Hong Kong, I viewed matters at first through the Occupy Frame
(and the black-clad protesters didn't help me avoid that). However, it's clear that a
substantial portion of the population really does see then as "front-liners," as in America
we would not. Further, property violence seems carefully calibrated, as in the United States
it is not. So I was wrong.
Thanks, Lambert; I get that Here; in the U.S. it is *divide and conquer* , or conquering
by division as long as we fight with each other over *hot button* topics; we can't get
together to deal with the big; underlying issues.
There's another kind of protest entierely; the entiely fabricated protest as means of
pro-establishment propaganda. Here in Portland, OR, we've been treated to some breathlessly
sensationalized street battles between ostensibly far right and far left 'protesters'.
Eyewitness accounts speak of supposed ultra-conservative activists popping out of the back of
police vans to instigate dustups. And anyone who's not wholly ignorant of the infiltration of
left activists in the 60s knows just how easy this is. A Punch and Judy show managed from FBI
headquarters which is then reported by hyperventilating media. Fox News shows us raggedy
Bolsheviks with bandito massks beating up clean cut journo Andy Ngo (who then goes on the
pro-Israel circuit after recovering from massive brain trauma!) Then switching to Amy
Goodman, you get bald thuggish looking white guys with tattoos variously of Christian and
Viking themes (how exactly these really mesh in anyone's mind, I don't quite get-but that's
supposing it's real) forming a phalanx and waving confederate flags.
The entire thing seems fabricated to push fretting liberal homeowners and Responsible People
to support the 'radical center' of neoliberal Clintonism.
Since you live in Rose City, feel free to go on down and meet the "raggedy Bolsheviks" for
your own self. Or talk to the nazis, most are friendly enough to 'non-combatants'.
No doubt there are false flaggers and cops in both groups, but I assure you the conflict
itself is not staged.
Thanks for starting to wade into this topic. I appreciate the academic sideboards as a way
to discover the common elements. Which will help us with the revolution against neoliberalism
here in the US.
let me add my thanks for this round up. I look forward to continuing coverage on this
topic and especially beg those living outside the US, most especially those speaking the
local languages to give us the benefit of your observations.
Marcie Smith has done amazing research into the "guru of nonviolent revolution," Gene
Sharp, who turns out to be a CIA tool responsible for the "nonviolent" color revolutions
which were just an easier assertion of soft power than those annoying invasions and
coups.
So amazing that you can't be bothered to supply readers with the link?
Here is it is . I think Smith
oversimplifies ; I also think misuse of Smith's work leads to a quasi-religious tendency
("faith is the evidence of things not seen") to imagine CIA agents behind every protest sign,
and to imagine Sharp as a Saruman-like figure controlling the action from a distance, all of
which is both untrue and demoralizing/disempowering. You also seem to think that Sharp's
techniques substitute for invasions and coups; but in Serbia they clearly did not,
since we had both Otpor and bombing; and in Tahrir Square, to the extent that Sharp inspired
that protest -- the hashtag #GeneSharpTaughtMe was widely used at the time, in mockery -- an
invasion wasn't even an option. It's also not clear that the outcome of Tahrir Square was an
outcome we even desired; clearly the protesters had no idea what to do with power if they
won, which one would think their case officers would have handled as a matter of course.
The reflexiv sequence protest -> color revolution -> Gene
Sharp -> CIA seems deeply attractive to some soi disant leftists;
it's so mechanical and pointless and self-defeating it makes head hurt and my back teeth
itch. (Even at the best, it's like arguing that because the Germans sent Lenin over the
Russian border in a sealed train in 1917, that the Bolsheviks were all a plot by Kaiser
Wilhelm II.)
I'm also curious why you even bring up Gene Sharp. The post doesn't mention him. Is it
your thesis that the CIA is behind all the global protests?
This is a good point.
Not all opposition is controlled, but that does not mean the forces of the ancien regime
don't try. The upheavals in Egypt caught the neoliberal paladins by surprise and caused much
dismay. That the Army brought the mild islamist party leader down in a counter-doup is not a
symptom that the entirety of the Tahrir Square enterprise was a CIA orchestrated hoax of some
kind. Just that the US was happy to let Morsi hang once the Generals got their act together.
There certainly are many pro neoliberal coups that dress themselves up in liberatory
clothing. (Maidan and Georgia are the claerest examples.)
Gene Sharp, from everything I've seen on him and his career, showed him to be a true
believer in neoliberalism and the empire that propped it up. I suggest people look into his
views on the "free market," and its relation to democracy, to see what he was really
about.
What was the name of the institute he headed over at Harvard for so many years? Why, it
was the "Center for International Affairs"! Now why did they decide to rename that, after
waves of student protests against it? The acronym just a little too "on the nose?" He seemed
like a willfully ignorant dupe working alongside a long list of cold war psychopaths. Whether
or not he "believed" this or that, about his own work, is irrelevant.
Not to mention the underemployed -- the ongoing commitment of western regimes to inflation
prevention at the expense of labor wastage and the consequent immiseration of the citizenry
is scandalous.
Kenneth Pomeranz's "The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern
World Economy," basically proves your point very effectively. Pretty much beats down any
crypto-racist theories on the superiority of "western civilization," etc. China didn't have
coal, simple as that.
I would say that one has to categorize "protests" in order to uncover how they relate to
social relations of power. Violent vs non-violent framing is useful if you want to argue that
violence is not just immoral but actually impractical. If you want to try to prove the
eternal moral basis of the liberal order, it's great. If you really want to uncover how
conflict and power work, you need more vectors.
Complicate Chenoweth's liberal framing by adding more categories. What's the goal of the
movement? Is it revolutionary of reformist? Is the movement organized or diffuse? If the
violence is diffused is it lumpen rioting and random terror? If the violence is organized is
it terror cells, military columns, foreign invasion or something else? If the movement is
organized non-violent, does it exist at the same time as an organized violent movement with
similar goals? If the movement is organized non-violent, are the people in it armed but not
using the arms? If the movement is diffused non-violent is it actively opposed to violence?
Every combination matters in context, and the reform vs revolutionary labels absolutely
matter. There is a big difference between demanding the end of a fuel tax and demanding the
end of capitalism. There is a big difference between the treatment of armed people and
unarmed people by security forces, depending on the context.
In general IMO, reforms under liberalism can be captured through non-violent protest, and
diffused violence can harm their chances because they give security forces an excuse for a
crackdown. The organized threat of violence can help organized non-violent reform protests
because it scares the ruling class (BPP in the USA is a great example), but organized
violence itself can harm non-violent reform protests unless it's successfully revolutionary.
Revolution (not just a change in government!) can never be achieved through non-violent
protest, because the ruling class will use violence to save themselves.
"... As lawmakers examine whether President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate the Biden family, here are some of the most prominent falsehoods that have spread online and an explanation of what really happened. ..."
"... Interfax-Ukraine ..."
"... The second part is about Trump allegations connecting the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to the Ukraine. The NYT ..."
"... CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch issued a report about a Ukrainian software for artillery targeting. The report falsely claimed that the software was hacked by Russia and that Russia used the coordinates the hacked software allegedly transmitted. ..."
"... Those CrowdStrike allegations were completely false : ..."
"... The debunked CrowdStrike report about the Ukraine demonstrated that the company can not be trusted when it alleges Russian hacking - be it of an Ukrainian artillery app or of the DNC servers. ..."
"... The Ukrainian actions against the Trump campaign are well documented . The Ukrainians even admitted their intervention : ..."
"... The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election. ..."
"... Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their efforts to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power. ..."
"... Trump claimed that China handed over $1.5 billion to Hunter Biden. But the truth is that the state owned Bank of China handed $1.5 billion ( by now $2.1 billion ) to a company that was partially owned by Hunter Biden. The timing of the very unusual deal additionally suggests that it was made for political purposes. ..."
"... The debunking piece fails in all four points it raises. It is itself sowing disinformation about Biden's intervention against Shokin and the Ukrainian meddling in the U.S. election. It fails to mention relevant facts on the two other issues. ..."
"... While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani , though they typically communicated in English. ..."
The New York Times continues to lie about Joe Biden's involvement in the Ukraine
and about Ukrainian involvement in the U.S. election. Today it also lied about a fact in
relation to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who was yesterday questioned by the Democrats
'impeachment inquiry'. The NYT reported that very fact just a day ago. During the
hearing Lt.Col. Vindman expressed a rather preposterous view about who should define U.S.
foreign policy.
The NYT claims to debunk falsehoods but spreads more of them:
Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine As lawmakers examine whether President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate the Biden
family, here are some of the most prominent falsehoods that have spread online and an
explanation of what really happened.
Why was Ukraine's top prosecutor fired?
...
A year later, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine's prosecutor general, a job similar to the
attorney general in the United States. He vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an
international push to root out corruption in Ukraine.
But the investigation went dormant under Mr. Shokin . In the fall of 2015, Joe Biden
joined the chorus of Western officials calling for Mr. Shokin's ouster. The next March, Mr.
Shokin was fired. A subsequent prosecutor cleared Mr. Zlochevsky.
Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin
started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to
lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the
Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on
vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into
office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.
Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then
closed the case against Zlochevsky.
and:
It is quite astonishing that the false claims, that Shokin did not go after Burisma owner
Zlochevsky, is repeated again and again despite the fact that the public record , in form of a
report by Interfax-Ukraine , contradicts it.
Back to the NYT
'debunking' . The second part is about Trump allegations connecting the cybersecurity
company CrowdStrike to the Ukraine. The NYT is correct to say that Trump's claims in
that direction are mostly confused or false. But it also makes this claim:
CrowdStrike, based in California, is not Ukrainian-owned and does not appear to have any
Ukrainian connections.
CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch issued a report about a Ukrainian software
for artillery targeting. The report falsely claimed that the software was hacked by Russia
and that Russia used the coordinates the hacked software allegedly transmitted.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian
artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian
separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS),
which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces,
disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has stated that the combat losses and hacking never
happened.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last
year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence.
The debunked CrowdStrike report about the Ukraine demonstrated that the company can
not be trusted when it alleges Russian hacking - be it of an Ukrainian artillery app or of
the DNC servers.
The NYT 'debunking' also claims:
Mr. Trump's own former Homeland Security secretary, Thomas P. Bossert, called the
president's assertion that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 elections on behalf of the
Democrats "not only a conspiracy theory" but "completely debunked."
The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin,
becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's
wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before:
intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.
... Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their
efforts to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it
annexed two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power.
The third claim which the NYT tries to 'debunk' is that the CIA agent who played
the 'whistleblower' against Trump is a political partisan. The debunking fails when the
NYT itself notes the source of the claim:
Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the American intelligence community, found
unspecified indications of "an arguable political bias," suggesting the whistle-blower
favored a rival political candidate, according to a Justice Department memo.
The fourth 'debunking' is about Hunter Biden's business with China:
Critics of Hunter Biden have sought other areas ripe for sowing disinformation. One they
have homed in on is his dealings in China.
...
While the amount of money Hunter Biden made from those deals remains unknown, Mr. Trump has
said that China handed over $1.5 billion to Mr. Biden in a "sweetheart" business deal meant
to win favor with his father.
...
The $1.5 billion figure Mr. Trump has referred to appears to be the amount of money a
Shanghai private-equity company raised in 2014. Hunter Biden joined the board of the
company, BHR Equity Investment Fund Management, in late 2013. In 2017, he bought 10 percent
of the firm, investing the equivalent of $420,000.
The NYT conveniently forgets to mention who is
behind BHR and how the deal was made:
On one of the first days of December 2013, Hunter Biden was jetting across the Pacific
Ocean aboard Air Force Two with his father and daughter Finnegan. ... Vice President Biden,
Hunter Biden and Finnegan arrived to a red carpet and a delegation of Chinese
officials.
...
[Hunter Biden's company] Rosemont Seneca Partners had been negotiating an exclusive deal
with Chinese officials, which they signed approximately 10 days after Hunter visited China
with his father. The most powerful financial institution in China, the government's Bank of
China, was setting up a joint venture with Rosemont Seneca.
...
Rosemont Seneca and the Bank of China created a $1 billion investment fund called Bohai
Harvest RST (BHR), a name that reflected who was involved. Bohai (or Bo Hai), the innermost
gulf of the Yellow Sea, was a reference to the Chinese stake in the company. The "RS"
referred to Rosemont Seneca. The "T" was Thornton.
Trump claimed that China handed over $1.5 billion to Hunter Biden. But the truth is
that the state owned Bank of China handed $1.5 billion (
by now $2.1 billion ) to a company that was partially owned by Hunter Biden. The timing
of the very unusual deal additionally suggests that it was made for political
purposes.
The NYT asserts that Trump was "sowing disinformation' about Hunter Biden's China
relation. Trump often lies but in this case he just simplified the facts.
The debunking piece fails in all four points it raises. It is itself sowing
disinformation about Biden's intervention against Shokin and the Ukrainian meddling in the
U.S. election. It fails to mention relevant facts on the two other issues.
In its zeal to propagandize against the Trump administration the NYT is playing
lose with the facts and is even disregarding its own reporting. Consider this
item from today about media reactions to the Lieutenant Colonel who was yesterday
questioned by the Democrats 'impeachment inquiry':
Jack Posobiec, a well-known figure on the far-right internet, tweeted the falsehood that
Mr. Vindman had been advising the Ukrainian government on how to counter Mr. Trump's
foreign policy goals. Mr. Posobiec cited The New York Times as his source -- in fact, The
Times reported no such thing.
While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of
whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine
along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian
officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani , though they
typically communicated in English.
When Rudi Giuliani was trying to get information about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016
election he was undoubtly pursuing the president's foreign policy. Posobiec was right and the
NYT should correct itself.
Lt.Col. Vindman did not like those policies. He in fact believes that U.S. foreign policy
should not be directed by the president.
In his written opening remarks to yesterday's confidential hearing, widely spread to the
media, he
asserts :
In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken
major steps towards integrating with the West. The U.S. government policy community's view
is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to
eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine
to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.
Given this perspective and my commitment to advancing our government's strategic
interests , I will now recount several events that occurred.
...
When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on
Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This
narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy . While my interagency colleagues and I
were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative
undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.
Who the f**k does this NSC minion thinks he is? The President of the United States?
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
President Trump and many other people believe that it would be better for the United
States to ally with Russia against an ever growing China than to push Russia and China into
an undefeatable alliances against the United States. Trump often alluded to this during his
campaign. The voters seem to have liked that view.
The U.S. coup in the Ukraine made that policy more difficult to achieve. But within the
big picture the Ukraine is just a bankrupt and corrupt state that has little strategic value
and can be ignored.
One can disagree with that view and with other foreign policy priorities Trump set out and
pursues. I certainly disagree with most of them. But for those who work "at the pleasure of
the President" his views are the guidelines that set the direction of their duties.
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are
trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest
and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices
independent of what the president thinks or believes.
We have warned that such interference by the Borg, the 'deep state' or 'swamp', is a
danger
to democracy :
If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected
officials why should we bother with holding elections?
The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are
likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service
functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?
It is unfortunate that the above points have to be repeated again and again. But when
powerful media try to sell the lies about the Ukrainian interferences by repeating the same
falsehoods over and over again the truth has only a chance to win when it is likewise spread
repeatedly.
Posted by b on October 30, 2019 at 18:46 UTC |
Permalink Thanks,b. The truth is that the NYT piece is a published blue print for what
the quality media in vassal countries are supposed to communicate. Being German, you know
what I mean. Now, I know what will be presented in all channels tomorrow and I can spare the
time considering that bs. ;-)
No mystery here. As you pointed out already, the NYT first denied the deep state and then
came to love it. There is no going back now, it is a love story for the ages...
All the lies are just part of a neverending media circus, with no real consequences on
anything. Telling the truth about the media circus has exactly the same effect.
And if you look at the NY Times reporter's credit and CV, clicking her name will lead you
there, her job at the NY Times is to "debunk" online disinformation.
But she posted a crap load of fake news here as you note.
Here's Ms Alba's NY Times bio-CV page, note the short first paragraph:
Davey Alba is a technology reporter covering online disinformation and its global
harms.
Before joining The New York Times, Ms. Alba was a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News,
writing about artificial intelligence and the invasive effects of tech in people's lives. In
2019, her feature on how Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, used Facebook to fuel
the drug war in the country won a Livingston Award for excellence in international reporting.
The article also won a 2019 Mirror Award for best story on journalism in peril.
Ms. Alba has covered tech for the last decade, writing about topics as diverse as
facial recognition's civil rights problems, the industry's practice of using forced
arbitration in employee contracts and sexual harassment in tech. She has written for various
publications, including Wired, Gizmodo and IEEE Spectrum.
She moved to the United States in 2010 after attending De La Salle University in Manila
and has a master's degree in science journalism from Columbia University. She lives in
Brooklyn.
Columbia University School of Journalism embarrasses itself again.
I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the
"government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to
hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is
supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize
Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community".
Everyone was shocked when Trump won the election, especially Trump and the "government
policy community". He is the proverbial dog that caught the speeding car. It's quaint that
Trump thinks he can make real policy changes. His failures in medical insurance, controlling
the FED, etc. underscore the point that being the leader is useless if underlings don't obey.
The "government policy community" will never follow Trump and it won't stop until Trump is
gone one way or another.
Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is
required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it.
Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy
established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the
stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters.
I'm starting to think that things may get really ugly in the "Home of the Brave and the
Land of the Free".
I don't agree with b that Posobiec's assertion that the NY Times had reported that "Vindman
had been advising the Ukrainian government" was factual just because the Times had reported
that "Ukrainian officials sought advice from [Vindman]".
Surely Ukraine seeking advice is not the same as Vindman actually providing it. It seems
the Times may be accurate in calling Posobiec's statement a "falsehood".
I am not a legal or constitutional scholar, but I ask myself, not for the first time, whether
the media can ever be held to account. One might argue that the criminal justice system could
not function without credible penalties for perjury. Whistleblowers and journalists who bring
the secrets of the powerful to light are increasingly fair game. But the only journalist I
can think of who faced at least mildly negative consequences for her role in the run up to
the Iraq war was Judith Miller, and she managed to have herself carted off on the laughable
hobbyhorse of "protecting" her sources among the murderous architects of that war.
I get that we have wandered back into the arena of "fake news," which has been framed by
the Right against corporate media that they quaintly characterize as "Left", and that the
Oligarchy's concern for it (among the Right) has been a stalking horse for repressing actual
progressive dissent. (A la Propornot.)
But are there simply no legal remedies that might actually serve to improve the quality of
information that we are forced to wade through?
Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats' controversial
impeachment inquiry last week, led an election observation delegation in Ukraine earlier this year for a George
Soros-funded organization that at the time boasted Hunter Biden on its small chairman's council.
Two months before he came out of retirement to serve as the highest ranking U.S. official in Ukraine, Taylor led
an election observer delegation to Ukraine's April 21, 2019 second round presidential election for the National
Democratic Institute (NDI) organization.
The delegation's mission, according to NDI
literature
, was to "accurately and impartially assess various aspects of the election process, and to offer
recommendations to support peaceful, credible elections and public confidence in the process."
Taylor led the team along with former Director of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) Audrey Glover and former Minister for European Union
Affairs Birgitta Ohlsson.
Hunter Biden at the time served on NDI's ten person Chairman's Council, which
describes itself
as
bringing together "leaders from corporate, philanthropic, and academia sectors to provide expertise, counsel and
resources to help the Institute meet these evolving challenges."
Biden was engaged in Ukraine in his role as a board member for Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company at the
center of allegations regarding Joe Biden's involvement in Ukraine policy during the Obama administration while his
son was being paid by Burisma.
NDI did not immediately respond to a Breitbart News inquiry about when Hunter Biden was removed from the
organization's chairman's council. The WayBack Internet archive
shows
Biden was
listed on NDI's website in that position until at least August 2019, encompassing the period when Taylor led the
organization's delegation.
Earlier this month, an attorney for Biden
said
the former vice president's son had stepped down from the Burisma board and that he planned to step down
from the board of BHR, a Chinese company seeking to invest Chinese funds outside China.
The NDI is not Taylor's only seemingly conspicuous link. Last week, Breitbart News
reported
that Taylor has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, writing Ukraine
policy pieces with the organization's director and analysis articles published by the Council. The Atlantic
Council is
funded
by
and works in partnership with Burisma.
In addition to a direct relationship with the Atlantic Council, Taylor for the last nine years also served as a
senior adviser to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), which has
co-hosted
events
with the Atlantic Council and has participated in events co-hosted
jointly
by
the Atlantic Council and Burisma. USUBC events have been financially sponsored by Burisma.
Another senior
adviser
to
the USUBC is David J. Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain. Kramer played a central role in
disseminating the anti-Trump dossier to the news media and Obama administration.
Taylor participated in events and initiatives organized by Kramer.
The links may be particularly instructive after Breitbart News
reported
that
itinerary for a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council for ten Congressional
aides reveals that a staffer on Rep. Adam Schiff's House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a meeting
during the trip with Taylor. The pre-planned trip took place after the so-called whistleblower officially filed his
August 12 complaint and
reportedly
after
a Schiff aide was contacted by the so-called whistleblower.
Common funding themes
Meanwhile, NDI, where Taylor led the election observation delegation,
lists
partners and sponsors who "provide much-needed resources," including Soros's Open Society Foundation, Google Inc.,
the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S.
Department of State.
Besides Burisma funding, the Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros's Open Society Foundations, Google, and
the U.S. State Department. Another Atlantic Council funder is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.,
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund, and an agency of the State Department each also
finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in
the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference
from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the so-called whistleblower's document and released by the Google
and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public
precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's own claims, as Breitbart News
documented
.
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr.
Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff
Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the "cases" mentioned in that
call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request
for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials told me" – it contains a footnote
referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates
of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser,
Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does
so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko "also stated that he wished to communicate directly
with Attorney General Barr on these matters."
Document that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a
Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr. Giuliani were trying to
make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I
do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by
OCCRP, referenced above."
The OCCRP
report
repeatedly
referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and
BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published
the
full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. The
dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was produced by the
Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces
on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political
rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference
BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.
Taylor, Atlantic Council, Kramer
Multiple U.S. media outlets last week
obtained
Taylor's
full opening statement to the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.
In the leaked pre-written full opening statement, Taylor alluded to work he said he did for a "small Ukrainian
non- governmental organization" but he omitted the name of the organization.
"In the intervening 10 years, I have stayed engaged with Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a board member
of a small Ukrainian non- governmental organization supporting good governance and reform," he said.
The name of the organization is the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), where Taylor served for nine years as
senior advisor. The USUBC has co-hosted or participated in scores of events with the Atlantic Council. Taylor has
also authored numerous analysis pieces published by the Atlantic Council itself and has co-authored opeds written
together with the Atlantic Council's director.
Burisma is a key financial backer of the Atlantic Council. In 2017, Burisma and the Atlantic Council
signed
a
cooperative agreement to develop transatlantic programs with Burisma's financial support reportedly to focus "on
European and international energy security." Burisma specifically finances the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Besides funding the Atlantic Council, Burisma also routinely partners with the think tank. Only four months ago,
the company
co-hosted
the
Atlantic Council's second Annual Kharkiv Security Conference. Burisma
advertises
that
it committed itself to "15 key principles of rule of law and economic policy in Ukraine developed by the Atlantic
Council."
In March, three months before he became Trump's ambassador to Ukraine, the Atlantic Council
featured
an
oped co-authored by Taylor in which the diplomat argued Ukraine "has further to travel toward its self-proclaimed
European goal" of reformation.
In 2017, Taylor wrote a
piece
for
the Atlantic Council about a Ukrainian parliament vote on health care reform.
Last year, he
participated
in
an online Atlantic Council Q & A on the Crimea.
In November 2011, the Atlantic Council
hosted
Taylor
as the featured speaker at a discussion event when he was appointed that year as Special Coordinator for Middle East
Transitions at the State Department.
In March 2014, Taylor co-authored an analysis piece at Foreign Policy
magazine
written
together with John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who serves as director of the Eurasia Center for
the Atlantic council – the same Eurasia Center that is specifically funded by Burisma.
That same year, Taylor also co-authored a
New York Times
op-ed
with
the Atlantic Council's Herbst on Ukraine. The duo co-authored another
Times
op-ed
one
year later on the future of Ukraine. The op-ed was
reprinted
on
the USUBC's website.
The USUBC, where Taylor was a senior adviser for nine years along with Kramer, has
hosted
Herbst
for briefings and other events.
Kramer of the USUBC, infamous for his role in disseminating the anti-Trump dossier, also held a November 2011
event
at
the Atlantic Council's D.C. offices for a group that he heads called Freedom House. Taylor was one of six featured
speakers at Kramer's event.
The Atlantic Council published what it deemed a
24-point
plan
for ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In conjunction with the plan, Kramer, in his role as
director of Freedom House, organized a letter by American and European experts and former officials urging Russia to
end its conflict with Ukraine. Signatories of the letter,
published
on
the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council's website, include Taylor, Kramer and the Atlantic Council's Herbst.
As late as this past March, Taylor was
listed
as
one of nine members of the Friends of Ukraine Network Economic Security Task Force. Another member is Kramer.
When he deployed to Ukraine as Trump's ambassador in June, the USUBC
authored
a
piece in the Kyiv Post welcoming him.
In the USUBC
piece
welcoming
Taylor to Ukraine, Kramer himself commented about Taylor's ambassador position. "He's a great choice for now," Kramer
gushed.
The USUBC's piece noted that the "USUBC has worked closely with Ambassador Taylor for many years," touting his
role as the business group's senior adviser.
On June 26, just nine days after arriving in Ukraine as ambassador, the USUBC already
hosted
Taylor
for a roundtable discussion about his new position.
Vadym Pozharskyi, adviser to the board of directors at Burisma Holdings, was also previously
hosted
as
a USUBC featured speaker.
Geysha Gonzalez is the sponsoring Atlantic Council officer listed on the Congressional disclosure form for the
Schiff staffer's trip to Ukraine in August. She is deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Gonzalez is also one of eleven members of the rapid response
team
for
the Ukrainian Election Task Force, which says it is working to expose "foreign interference in Ukraine's democracy."
Another
member
of
the team is Kramer.
Kramer revealed in testimony that he held a meeting about the anti-Trump dossier with a reporter from BuzzFeed
News, who he says snapped photos of the controversial document without Kramer's permission when he left the room to
go to the bathroom. That meeting was held at the McCain Institute office in Washington, Kramer stated.
BuzzFeed infamously
published
the
Christopher Steele dossier on January 10, 2017, setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.
The Washington Post
reported
last
February that Kramer received the dossier directly from Fusion GPS after McCain expressed interest in it.
In a deposition taken on December 13, 2017, and
posted
online
earlier this year, Kramer revealed that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about
whether the anti-Trump dossier was being taken seriously.
In one case, Kramer said that he personally provided a copy of the dossier to Obama National Security Council
official Celeste Wallander.
In the deposition, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December 2016 to meet about the dossier
with Wallander and Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry's State Department.
Taylor testimony and Burisma
In his testimony to the Democrats secretive impeachment inquiry, Taylor said that he "understood" from U.S.
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky "was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations." Taylor was referring to the announcement of
an investigation that included Burisma, as well as alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Taylor's testimony was
characterized
by
CNN as "explosive" and was similarly hyped by other news media outlets despite it not being unusual for the U.S. to
condition aspects of relations on participation in ongoing American investigations involving the foreign country in
question.
Still, Taylor conceded that there was no quid pro quo.
"Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although
this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not 'clear things up' in public, we could be at a 'stalemate.'
I understood 'stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance," Taylor
testified.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau
chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk
radio program, "
Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio
." Follow him on
Twitter
@AaronKleinShow.
Follow him on
Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
On Thursday Nancy Pelosi held a vote to
reaffirm her impeachment inquisitiveness. It was theater; everyone knows the
hyper-politicized Democratic House will impeach. It's a weak case, but that doesn't matter. A
partisan Senate (who will also see a weak case but that doesn't matter) won't convict. America
will leave a steaming mound of democracy aside the road and reflect forever which side stepped
in it after we're done arguing who won in November 2020.
We'll have forgotten by then about the evidence, so it's worth a look while still fresh.
Absent any really big surprises, we know the narrative now.
Forget the whistleblower. He had no first hand knowledge of a "high crime and misdemeanor,"
just an opinion about a phone call he wasn't party to. Yet even after DOJ ruled the
whistleblower revealed
no criminal act, Nancy Pelosi
announced an impeachment inquiry.
Trump then released the memorandum of conversation between himself and Ukrainian president
Zelensky. This is the U.S. government's record of what was said and as such will form near 100
percent of what Dems will use to impeach. After all, it is the only primary document in the
case. Yet despite its short length, some five
pages , many people want to characterize what it says instead of just reading the thing. So
follow
along if you like.
Advertisement
The call was a routine congratulatory message to Zelensky on his election, diplomatic chit
chat. We're on page three before the first bit of possible significance comes. Here it is in
its entirety:
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike I guess you have one of your
wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on,
the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I
would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get
to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor
performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance. But they say a lot of
it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's
possible.
Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and
that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that the way they shut your very good
prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected
man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I
will ask him to call you along with the Attorney·General. Rudy very much knows what's
happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was
dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other
thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot
of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would
be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into
it It sounds horrible to me.
To impeach, one must conclude from the text above that a) Trump asking for information,
however far-fetched, on possible foreign interference in the 2016 election was wrong (and then
explain why the Dems conducted a three year investigation of the same); b) Trump asking for an
investigation into whether then-Vice President and perhaps soon President Biden used his office
for personal gain is of no interest to the people of the United States, even if that same
information were also of interest to Trump (and account for Dems asking in 2018 the Ukraine to
cooperate to dig up dirt on Trump, and allowing that a Ukrainian investigation would
supposedly exonerate Biden); c) that Trump made clear to Zelensky aid was contingent on these
investigations and; d) explain why the aid paid out soon after the call without any
investigation.
The base problem is Trump never said he was withholding aid in the July 25 call. The
earliest tick the Ukrainians knew the aid was being delayed was "early August" and even that is
based on anonymous
media sources who somehow have not been found to testify. Official U.S. and
Ukrainian officials instead say knowledge the funds were held up didn't get to the Ukrainians
until late August, shortly before they were released.
Monday brought the news that Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman planned to
tell impeachment investigators Wednesday that the July 25 transcript given to Congress
omitted Trump's appeals to Zelensky to investigate Biden. He was reportedly on the call, had
twice "registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating
Ukraine, out of what he called a 'sense of duty,'" according
to a New York Times report.
Such omissions (if they are real and there is no evidence besides Vindman's own statement)
add or detract nothing from the core questions at the heart of this impeachment: did Trump
withhold aid in return for a Ukrainian investigation, and was seeking such an investigation
solely a personal political goal or something of interest to the United States?
It is important to go back to what we do know, that the aid was ultimately delivered, and
that correlation is not causation. This was the big gap in Russiagate; because A happened
before B, Democrats rushed to claim A caused B, and thus collusion!
That leads to a second base problem. Nothing happened. Trump
never asked the attorney general to contact Zelensky. It is unclear who if anyone Guiliani
spoke with, but either way the Ukrainians never investigated anything. This impeachment will be
the first in American history without any underlying actual crime taking place on the ground.
Democrats seek to impeach Trump for talking about something, and never doing something, that
itself may not be a real offense anyway. If you hear echoes of Russiagate, obstructing
something that wasn't actually obstructed, you have sharp ears.
When you have a smoking gun you usually don't need to keep searching for evidence. Knowing
the weakness in their case, it is telling Dems are engaged in a process of finding someone to
claim Trump's policy was to (not) withhold aid to force the Ukraine to do something they never
did.
They tried Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who stated, under oath and in a leaked text from the
time of the original call, there was no such quid pro quo.
The Dems then produced a series of angry people to testify they had been sidelined out of
the decision making process and thus knew very little first hand. The noisiest witness,
Ambassador William Taylor, made it clear
he was cut out of the White House's back channel for Ukrainian policy, and only knew what
insiders told him second hand. His other knowledge of the supposed quid pro quo came when he
heard "a [unnamed] staff person from the Office of Management and Budget say that there was a
hold on security assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end of an otherwise
normal meeting, a voice on the call -- the [unnamed] person was off-screen -- said that she was
from OMB and that her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of
security assistance for Ukraine until further notice."
Taylor went on even to impeach himself a little, admitting he had no evidence aid was
connected to investigation. He testified
National Security Council Senior Director Fiona Hill and NSC Director of European Affairs Alex
Vindman "reassured me that they were not aware of any official change in U.S. policy toward
Ukraine, OMB's announcement notwithstanding."
Taylor never spoke to the president or to the secretary of state. Despite his title Taylor
was not a player. His testimony was just his opinion. Deep Throat that is not.
What else? The media found a way to word-trick Ambassador Sondland's attorney into saying
what his client described in testimony "amounted to" a quid pro quo, possibly thinking they
could use a client's own lawyer's
re-characterization of testimony to impeach.
Again, there are no documents or policy papers to support the claim the policy was aid for
investigation.
A slam dunk currently rests on John Bolton, a life-long conservative nearing the end of his
public life. They hope he will testify such that the last lines of his biography will be "the
man who more than any other individual helped elect Elizabeth Warren." Sorry, Bolton, like
Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen, is not your Fredo.
Unlike with Nixon and Clinton, the House is not building on an existing law enforcement
investigation. That was supposed to be Mueller. Instead, the "investigation" is jerry-rigged in
real-time consisting of a stage-managed parade of credentialed hostile witnesses interpreting
what Trump said. It is like a room full of critics impeaching Bob Dylan out of the Hall of Fame
by telling us what his lyrics really mean to him. Opinions are not evidence.
The impeachment inquiry Democrats launched last month may ultimately hinge on a simple
question: Did President Trump try to force a foreign power (or powers) to help him take down a
political opponent, Joe Biden?
But the backdrop of their effort is far more complex and convoluted, connected not just to
Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine and related evidence but the three-year war of
attrition the Democrats have waged against the president. Their main instrument was the
Trump-Russia collusion story that roiled the capital until Special Counsel Robert Mueller
pronounced it unfounded. Now they have moved on to one or more "whistleblower" complaints
from within the intelligence community .
Given all the focus on nefarious Russia, you could be forgiven for missing the fact that
Ukraine was always at the center of the Trump-Russia affair.
Viewed in this light, the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo bribery narrative must compete with
another explanation: Trump's determination to get to the bottom of an underhanded years-long
campaign arrayed against him. One of the first things he did after the Mueller report debunked
the collusion narrative was to call the Ukranian president and ask him to help do just
that.
The impeachment battle is not just about congressional probes and alleged presidential
strong-arming, but about the Russiagate narrative. Anti-Trump forces in the government and
media are working to vindicate their previous efforts and discredit a forthcoming Justice
Department inquiry into the origins of Russiagate by again connecting Trump and a foreign power
to a U.S. election.
I've covered the Trump-Russia story for three years. Even before these operations emerged
publicly after Trump's 2016 victory, I doubted the pre-election whisper campaign circulating
throughout the Washington press corps that held Trump was clandestinely cooperating with
Moscow.
First, the idea that Trump had for many years been a Russian ally, even an agent, was hard
to believe given that there had been no mention of this during a long career lived entirely in
the spotlight. I was especially skeptical of this claim because Trump's business concerns were
based largely in the most media-saturated city in the world, and because they involved
industries – especially real estate and casinos – that attract the attention of
legal authorities.
Family matters: Joe Biden, right, and his son Hunter at a commemoraton
for the Vice President's late son late Beau. AP Photo/Visar Kryeziu
Second, candidate Trump's proposed policies toward Russia were similar to those of the Obama
administration – and would prove tougher after he was elected – making it hard to
see how he was secretly beholden to Moscow.
I was not surprised when the special counsel concluded the story was false. Neither was it
surprising, given the amount of money, time, and prestige spent on pushing collusion, to see
Russiagate rebooted two weeks ago in the form of a whistleblower's complaint.
So far the basic facts are these: An active, and unnamed, CIA officer alleged that Trump had
sought information from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky regarding Biden's involvement in
a Ukrainian prosecution possibly involving his son Hunter. In exchange for information that,
according to the CIA officer, would assist Trump's 2020 re-election, the president would
release military aid to Ukraine.
Although the details are different – no mention this time of hookers and golden
showers – the whistleblower's central claim closely resembles the thesis laid out in the
anti-Trump dossier compiled by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele,
which the FBI used as its roadmap to collusion: That Trump took or solicited dirt on his
Democratic opponent from a foreign power in exchange for favors to that country's
government.
Once again, much of the media seem to be treating every allegation against Trump as probable
fact, while dismissing any questions and concerns as conspiracy theories.
Attorney General
William Barr and President Trump: "Our country has been through a lot," Trump told President
Zelensky. "They say a lot of it started with Ukraine." AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Although the whistleblower complaint seems to have emerged quickly, it must be viewed in
context of the long war against Trump and its numerous elements tied to Ukraine.
Recent interviews with senior sources on Capitol Hill and newly acquired documents show that
Ukraine was and continues to be central to the effort to take down Trump.
That's why Trump's most urgent request of the Ukrainian president was to assist Attorney
General William Barr in his investigation of the origins of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe.
"Our country has been through a lot," Trump told President Zelensky. "They say a lot of it
started with Ukraine."
This assertion was not wrong. And yet for all of the foreigners, including Ukrainians, who
played roles in Russiagate, this is a story about Americans with the sort of scruples,
ambitions, and labyrinthine connections found in a Dostoevsky novel.
Origins of Clinton-Tied Ukraine Dirt-Digging
It is significant, in this time of separate left and right media echo chambers, that an
early account of Hillary Clinton campaign efforts to dig up dirt on Team Trump using Ukraine
didn't originate on the right: It was a Politico
report by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern. (A repeat seems unlikely now: Vogel's current
employer, the New York Times, has dismissed Trump's claims about Ukraine's role in Russiagate
as part of a right-wing conspiracy theory.)
The Ukraine story starts no later than March 2016, when Democratic Party operative and
Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa approached the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
for information on the Trump campaign.
As John Solomon of The Hill newspaper wrote in May, Chalupa asked Ukrainian diplomats for
"evidence that Trump, his organization and [campaign manager Paul] Manafort were Russian
assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against the U.S. interests."
Chalupa emailed Democratic National Committee officials that she was briefing U.S. media on
Manafort's work in Ukraine. One of the journalists was Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News, who would
later publish one of the key stories advancing the collusion narrative.
Ukraine's ambassador to Washington
told Solomon that Chalupa wanted to approach a member of Congress to initiate hearings on
Manafort or arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's alleged
Kremlin ties during a visit to Washington.
Keep that in mind when Democrats and their media allies routinely suggest it is treasonous
to seek foreign aid during an election.
As Chalupa was pursuing these channels, the Clinton campaign stepped up its efforts to find
foreign dirt on Trump by hiring the Washington, D.C., firm Fusion GPS that March to compile and
distribute opposition research on Trump. One of the company's co-founders, Glenn Simpson, was a
former Wall Street Journal reporter who had written several articles about Manafort's work for
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
In a 2007 article, Simpson wrote that Yanukovych "favors closer ties with [Russian President
Vladimir] Putin's administration."
That view would inform much of the operation to come. It would use Manafort's close ties to
Yanukovych as the kernel of truth from which grew the vast Russiagate conspiracy.
From one of at least two dossiers on Paul Manafort
and Ukraine circulated by Fusion GPS.
One is an eight-page document titled "Paul Manafort – Ukraine and Lichtenstein," the
other is nine pages, titled "UPDATE – Paul Manafort." Links to Ukrainian- and
Russian-language Internet portals show that the research was compiled by someone who knew the
languages. In October 2015, Fusion GPS had brought on former Russian history professor Nellie
Ohr for Trump-Russia research. Ohr's husband, top Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr,
would later help spread Clinton-financed opposition research to the federal government, helping
prompt the Trump/Russia collusion probe.
The documents reference flight records, travel documents, and business agreements while
noting Manafort's relationships with several Ukrainian officials, including Yanukovych's chief
of staff, and oligarchs such as Clinton Foundation donor Victor Pinchuk, described as a
"Yanukovych booster."
Without evidence, one of the dossiers alleges that "the Russian government played a leading
role in promoting the Yanukovych presidency and Manafort worked closely with several Russians
during his time in Ukraine."
The other makes the speculative, if ominious-sounding, claim that "Manafort's newfound role
as campaign manager to Trump could offer Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin a new way to
exert influence on Trump."
Driving the Manafort-Yanukovych Narrative
Even as Clinton operatives sought the help of Ukrainian officials, they and their allies in
the press routinely mischaracterized Yanukovych as pro-Putin, advancing the Russia collusion
narrative.
Biden at a Kyiv memorial to protesters, 2014: Later his son Hunter was hired by an ally of the just-exiled
President, questionably tarred by Clinton operatives as a Putin stooge.
Ukraine is a buffer state, caught between European neighbors to the west and Russia to the
east. Its challenge is to balance the two against each other. Failure to do so is apt to lead
to conflict, such as the present war between the Kyiv government and Russian-backed separatists
in eastern Ukraine.
After Yanukovych became president in 2010, Manafort recommended that he draw closer to the
European Union with a trade deal. Putin saw that as a threat, and gave Yanukovych a choice
between crippling economic measures and a $15 billion aid package.
Ultimately, Yanukovych rejected Manafort's advice, bowing to Putin in late 2013, touching
off protests in the Ukrainian capital that led to deadly violence.
That turmoil started a new chapter in U.S.-Ukraine relations as the Obama White House made
then Vice President Joe Biden the point man on the issue.
Biden had known Yanukovych since
2009 and spoke with him frequently during the crisis.
The Obama administration, however, had little confidence in Yanukovych. State Department
officials on the ground the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, including Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland scrambled to piece together a coalition
government. Yanukovych fled his country for sanctuary in Russia in February 2014, just days
after his final phone call with Biden, when government snipers killed at least 88 protesters in
the capital.
In April 2014, Biden traveled to Kyiv with a small economic aid package, and warned the
Ukrainians to rein in corruption. A month later, his son Hunter was named to the board of
Burisma, one of Ukraine's largest independent energy companies. Although he had no experience
in the energy sector, Hunter was paid as
much as $50,000 a month for his services.
Here's where the politics get even more interesting. Burisma's owner was not a reformer, but
an
ally of the just-exiled Yanukovych, having served as his minister of natural resources.
Despite the Biden family's financial relationship with the Yanukovych circle, Clinton
operatives painted Manafort's association with Yanukovych as evidence of the Trump campaign's
pro-Putin sentiments.
In a three-day period at the end of April 2016, for instance, Slate, the
Washington Post and
Guardian all published articles alleging that Manafort's work for Yanukovych showed the
Trump team was close to Russia.
This is another reminder of the double-standard that has driven so much media coverage: the
eagerness to buy Clinton's spin on Manafort and then connect Trump to it all while dismissing
Biden's clear conflicts.
Clinton Operative Alleges a Ukrainian-Related Quid Pro Quo
Indeed, Manafort's relationship with Yanukovych became a keystone of the Trump-Russia
narrative. A July 18, 2016 Washington Post
article , for example, cited it before reporting new "evidence" that the campaign was
cozying up to Putin.
Paul Manafort, right, behind Ivanka Trump during a rehearsal at the
Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Next to the future President is Manafort's chief
deputy, Rick Gates, later indicted along with his boss.
Trump staffers, according to the article, "stripped out" the Republican National Convention
platform's call for giving Ukraine "lethal defensive weapons."
That was inaccurate
. One GOP delegate proposed an amendment calling for giving lethal aid to Ukraine. The
amendment was toned down by a Trump adviser, changing it to "appropriate assistance." The
result was that the amendment was softened but the platform's position on Ukraine was
strengthened. In office, the Trump administration, unlike Obama's, sent weapons to Kyiv.
That Post story illustrates the success of the Clinton operation in convincing many media
outlets and government agencies to interpret – and misinterpret – the Trump
campaign through the lens of Russian collusion. This, in turn, erased skepticism they should
have had in assessing the charges leveled for Clinton through Christopher Steele and Fusion
GPS.
In a July memo written after the DNC emails had been leaked during the Democrats'
convention, Steele alleged that the operation – the hack and the release of the emails
– had been orchestrated by the Russians. Then he claimed Moscow had done it with the full
knowledge of the Trump campaign. Manafort, Steele falsely claimed, was managing the
"well-developed conspiracy" for the Trump side.
Further, Steele claimed, in exchange for the DNC hack and subsequent publication of the
emails by WikiLeaks, the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a
campaign issue. This was the Clinton campaign's first allegation of a Ukraine-related quid pro
quo. This was also false.
As Clinton operatives used Ukraine to falsely smear Trump, Manafort's ties to that country
threw the Trump campaign into disarray. On Aug. 19, 2016, Manafort resigned as campaign manager
following what the New York Times and others described as a wave of stories about his "dealings
with Russia-aligned leaders." The Times pushed the larger collusion narrative being spun by
Clinton, reporting that the Manafort dismissal "threw a spotlight on a glaring vulnerability
for Mr. Trump: his admiration for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia."
The Times story also referenced its earlier article reporting that Manafort received illegal
cash payments for his Ukraine work. Manafort denied it.
One source for the Times story was former Ukrainian parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko, also
referred to in the whistleblower complaint. According to former Fusion GPS contractor Nellie
Ohr ,
Leshchenko was a source for Fusion GPS as well.
Two years later, in August 2018, Manafort pleaded guilty to tax and bank fraud connected to
his work in the Ukraine undertaken years before he joined the Trump campaign.
The Steele-Isikoff Nexus
With Manafort driven from the campaign just two months before the election, Clinton
operatives and the FBI zeroed in on another Trump adviser, Carter Page. Once again an alleged
Ukraine quid pro quo was at the center of it.
In July, Steele had alleged that Page was one of Manafort's "intermediaries" in the
"well-developed conspiracy" between Trump and Russia. The former British spy's second-hand
sources claimed that Page had met secretly with a Russian energy executive.
The executive, according to Steele, raised with Page the prospect of U.S.-Russia energy
cooperation in exchange for dropping sanctions imposed on Russia in 2014 for invading
Ukraine.
This second Ukraine-related quid pro quo was the subject of Michael Isikoff's Sept. 23 Yahoo
News article, based on information from Steele, whom Isikoff describes as an anonymous "Western
intelligence source."
A few weeks later, Steele revised his reporting on Page's meeting for a memo dated Oct. 18.
The British spy's unnamed sources changed their story, contending that the Trump adviser had
been offered a bribe if he convinced Trump to drop Ukraine-related sanctions. In a sign of how
deeply the media and FBI had accepted the Russiagate hoax, no one seemed to question that
laughably large amount of this alleged bribe – a brokerage fee on a sale of 19% of the
Russian oil giant Rosneft, which would have been worth at least tens of millions of
dollars.
On Oct. 21, the FBI obtained a warrant to spy on Page. The still heavily redacted warrant
shows that Steele's account of Page's meeting with the Russian energy executive to discuss
Ukraine sanctions was a key piece of evidence.
As supporting evidence, the bureau used Isikoff's article and two other Ukraine-related news
reports. One was the July Washington Post story alleging that the Trump campaign had weakened
the party's convention platform. The second article claimed that Trump had softened his support
for Ukraine after Page and Manafort joined the campaign.
This is one reason many consider the Steele dossier to be one of the least credible and most
successful pieces of opposition research in U.S. history.
Allegations Tie Up Incoming Trump Team
John Brennan: "High confidence" Putin had
developed a preference for Trump because of his "Russia-friendly positions" on Ukraine. AP
Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Even as Clinton tied Trump to Russia and blamed both for hacks of the DNC servers, the Obama
administration downplayed Russian interference in the 2016 election so as not to taint
Clinton's widely expected victory. After Trump won, Obama retaliated. In late December, he
expelled Russian diplomats, closed their diplomatic facilities, and sanctioned Russia's
military intelligence service (GRU) and four of its senior officers.
A document released the following week showed why the administration had targeted the GRU.
According to the January 2017 intelligence community assessment of Russia's interference in the
2016 elections, the GRU was behind the DNC hack.
Further, then-CIA director John Brennan's handpicked teams of analysts assessed with "high
confidence" that Putin had developed a preference for Trump because of his "Russia-friendly
positions" on Ukraine.
Days later, Steele's reports were made public. According to his sources, the DNC hack was
part of a quid pro quo regarding Ukraine.
Now the connections between Trump and the Russians were lit up like a string of holiday
lights -- Obama had sanctioned the GRU because of the DNC hack, which the Russians engineered
on behalf of the Trump campaign in exchange for sidelining Ukraine as a campaign
issue.
Robert Mueller, testifying. His report made no mention of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson,
or Alexandra Chalupa. It discussed Ukraine only in relation to Manafort and Gates.
The operation continued to unfold as the FBI and DoJ pursued their counterintelligence probe
of Trump and associates, eventually leading to Mueller's appointment as special counsel.
Mueller's probe focused almost entirely on Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election
and its possible connections to Trump. He and his team displayed no interest in exploring how
Clinton operatives had worked with foreign interests to sway the same election.
Still, Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump circle and Russian
officials. The report makes no mention of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, or Alexandra Chalupa.
Leshschenko appears only in a footnote. The report discusses Ukraine only in relation to
Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates.
Now, the Ukraine Chapter
But Ukraine's new starring role was still to come. The Intelligence Community's Inspector
General relayed the newly disclosed "whistleblower" complaint from the CIA analyst to the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence during a transitional period. Both DNI Dan
Coats and Deputy Director Sue Gordon had
just resigned when the whistleblower's complaint reached Acting DNI Joseph Maguire on Aug.
16, his first day on the job.
Previously, the ICIG's whistleblower's form required first-hand knowledge of the reported
concern to file a complaint. The
updated form , which was "revised after press inquiries" regarding the whistleblower's
complaint,
eliminated the requirement of first-hand knowledge. The CIA officer's complaint appears to
provide only hearsay.
Adam Schiff: Apparently knew of whistleblower complaint before he subpoenaed it.
In September, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena to Maguire
to produce the complaint. Yet Schiff apparently already knew its contents. More than two weeks
earlier, he'd written on Twitter , "Trump
is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the
Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent." A New York Times story last week reported that Schiff was briefed
by an aide on the substance of the whistleblower's complaint before it was filed with the
ICIG.
In driving the whistleblower chapter of the Russiagate operation, Schiff reprised the part
he played in its earlier chapters. For nearly two years the California congressman filled the
media with claims there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion that would bring
down the president.
On Sept. 13, ODNI's general counsel wrote Schiff and other leaders of the House and Senate
intelligence committees that since the whistleblower's complaint did not deal with intelligence
activities or the conduct a member of the intelligence community (i.e., the president is not a
member of the IC), it did not find it a matter of urgent concern.
Greg Miller, Washington
Post: Whistleblower news was leaked to him and other journalists who earlier shared a
Pulitzer Prize
relying on similar leaks against Trump about a Russia conspiracy, which proved unfounded.
Regardless, the subject matter, Trump's "promise" to a foreign official, was leaked for a
Sept. 18 Washington Post story
including the bylines of Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima, two of the reporters who in February
2017 received a seminal leak in the Trump-Russia case, regarding a conversation between Trump's
erstwhile national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
The same political operatives and journalists appear throughout the anti-Trump operation, as
do the same themes and even the same language.
The main charge in the whistleblower's complaint – that Trump solicited "interference
from a foreign country in the 2020 election" – echoes the title of the Mueller report,
"Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election . " The
whistleblower's thesis is identical to the dossier's: Trump sought dirt on a political rival
regarding Ukraine-related issues on a quid pro quo basis.
The nature of the call to Zelensky so alarmed Trump officials seeking to protect the
president, according to the unnamed CIA officer, that they stored the transcript in a secure
system usually reserved for programs like covert action. It was a detail contrived to further
smear Trump as deceptive, but Trump deputies had begun using the system after his conversations
with world leaders were leaked to the press early during the administration.
In February 2017, the Washington Post's Miller had the lead byline on a
story based on leaks of Trump's conversations with Australia's prime minister and Mexico's
president. Six months later, the Post published the entire transcripts
of both conversations in another Miller story.
It was through such national security correspondents that anti-Trump sources -- intelligence
officials -- pushed leaks of classified information and other tidbits intended to damage Trump
into the media. There it merged with other anti-Trump currents in nearly every corner of the
press, where it blossomed into Russiagate.
After a nearly two-year investigation, the special counsel found no evidence of collusion.
But given the scale of the damage done to the public sphere, clearly something had happened.
Among other things, the FBI had put a presidential campaign under surveillance.
It was logical that Trump, and millions of other Americans, wanted to know the origins of
the Russia probe and that the investigative work would be taken up by the Department of
Justice. Since DoJ and FBI officials at the highest levels were implicated, it was natural that
the attorney general himself would have a hand in the investigation.
Thus the panicked clamor coursing through the press at present is not about Joe Biden or
his son or Trump's alleged commerce with foreign powers. Rather, it is the fear that the
Russiagate bubble is likely to burst. And the fear that none of the reporters, intelligence
officials, and political operatives responsible for pushing the largest and most destructive
conspiracy theory in American history will escape the ruin.
Recently, one of my email pals sent me an incredible opinion piece from Howell Woltz at The
International Centre for Justice, in Warsaw, Poland. He is the author of " Justice Denied: The
United States vs. the People," a very interesting book about the US justice system and federal
prisons and the need for some serious reform. Occasionally, an opinion piece is so profound
that it simply MUST be disseminated to a much wider audience than a simple blog post. This is
one of such article. In this commentary, he opines on the DoJ/FBI cabal's ongoing coup against
POTUS while explaining some key connections among John Brennan , Mitt Romney, Cofer Black,
Burisma Holdings (Ukraine), Bararck Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest. It fills in a lot
of gaps and explains much about what is going on with respect to the Ukraine kerfuffle.
While I can't vouch for the veracity of all the claims here, this just rings true to me and
connects a lot of very interesting dots. As usual, I caution you to "trust but verify." If
nothing else, it serves as a departure point for your own dot-connecting activities. The more
independent analysis is conducted by all, the clearer picture becomes over time. These are some
extended excerpts from Woltz's opinion piece. More than a few light bulbs may be turned on for
you after reading this. Note: this article was published on 8 October, so keep this in mind as
you read it.
Donald J. Trump is not a RINO or DC insider. He's a tough-guy billionaire from Queens, New
York and a street-fighter. When the Democrats realised last week that Trump was actually
heading up his own investigation rather than leaving it to their Deep State apparatchiks -- and
doing so directly with the leaders of Ukraine, Australia, and Italy (and perhaps the U.K.) --
they did the political equivalent of starting a fire in a theatre. House of Representatives
Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announced impeachment proceedings against the president just three hours
after stating in a speech that she would not. Speaker Pelosi had zero evidence, cause, stated
reason and lacked the required vote of the House of Representatives to do so, but announced it
anyway.
Strangely enough and what caught my attention Mitt Romney jumped on the "Impeach Trump"
train that same day. How did Nancy go from "There will be no impeachment proceedings," that
morning in New York to announcing impeachment proceedings that afternoon when she got back to
Washington, DC? Meet the Grand Master of the Deep State in America. Admitted Communist, John
Brennan, who has some serious explaining to do now that his attempted coup of U.S. President
Donald Trump has been exposed and continues! So why did Romney want to shut down any
investigation of Ukraine's role as well? That's the question that got this investigation
started and it's shocking.
Romney's National Security Advisor, Joseph Cofer Black, sits on the Board of the same
Burisma Holdings that was being investigated for corruption back in 2014, and the Vice
President and Obama Administration demanded be shut down. Why? Because Burisma was/is their
vehicle for corrupt practices in Eastern Europe. And CIA Director, John Brennan's 9/11 Deep
State partner, Cofer Black, is still the link to all that goes on there. In fact, I can state
unequivocally that Burisma is the centre of Ukraine corruption and the Democrats' shadow
organisation for corrupt activities. I live in Eastern Europe (Poland) and my sources are
first-hand. And I know this matters greatly to Mitt Romney as he is not yet done with politics.
If Black is busted, it will reflect on Romney, and it only makes sense that Cofer Black is the
Deep State 'plant' in case Romney ever rises above polishing knobs in the U.S. Senate. Romney
wants to run for President again in 2024 and if he wins, Cofer Black will be back with his
fingers on the strings either as DNI or CIA Chief of Corruption. Burisma Holdings is the hub of
U.S. Democrat activities to corrupt both Ukraine and American politics and there is proof.
Ukraine President Zelenskyy's win surprised both Brennan and Black's Deep State ops as much as
Trump's did in 2016 in America.
So who is this Cofer Black guy? Joseph Cofer Black, joined the CIA in 1974 and rose to be
Director of The National Counterterrorism Center, before joining Mitt Romney. If it were not
for researching this article, I admit, he was unknown to me as well. What a revelation. Black
was also the Head of Counterintelligence who somehow missed the 9/11 attacks on New York and
Washington, though according to The Economist , 16 foreign leaders and heads of
intelligence agencies warned him it was not only going to happen but when. Oh well. And nothing
was done about Cofer Black for this, indicating this is what the Deep State wanted. But it goes
deeper. John Brennan and this guy, Cofer Black, are how 19 terrorists got into the U.S.A. to
attack the U.S. on 9/11.
Editor Harry will jump on me or make Nurse Ratched give me a dose of Castor Oil if I say
something I can't prove, so I'm just going to quote the CIA whistleblower at the Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia CIA staff hearing, who is the source: "According to Freedom Outpost, Brennan was the CIA
station chief in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, when the 9/11 hijackers were given visas to travel to
the United States. In September 2014, a whistleblower named Greg Ford, a former military
intelligence officer, told Ground Zero Radio's Clyde Lewis that the CIA had objections to the
approval of those visas but Brennan actually overrode them."
The second in command of the CIA station was directly quoted by the whistleblower as saying,
'No way, absolutely we are not going to stamp those visas.' But CIA Saudi station chief, John
Brennan, overrode the officer in charge and ordered the visas to be stamped and issued. They
came, they learned to 'take off' an airplane but said they were not interested in 'how to
land.' Cofer Black ignored the reports about this strange behaviour, though it was made, I know
as a fact, from the people who made it. I was also a Florida-based pilot in 2001.
You know the rest of the story. America lost over 3,000 citizens that day, and I sat for an
hour trying to get past the terrorist pilots' apartment in Coral Springs, Florida. Freedom
Outpost concluded, "If it weren't for John Brennan, 9/11 may never have happened." I'd add to
that, if Cofer Black weren't the head of Counterterrorism, Brennan could not have gotten his
men in to do the job. It took (these) two to tango. That's an opinion, not news, but I'll bet
money I don't have, that I'm right as it's a no risk bet. These are partners in crime.
"Joseph Cofer Black – the former Director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center
(1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004)."
"Mr. Black is an internationally recognized authority on counterterrorism, cyber security,
national security, and foreign affairs." (these are quotes from Burisma's website)
Brennan definitely had help in this. These terrorists had to have someone at the highest
level in U.S. Counterintelligence to let their mission come to pass and succeed by ignoring all
the warnings. They even took their flight training near my home, and I remember being locked
down in Coral Springs, FL after 9/11 where they lived for three days while the FBI went through
their apartment just a few blocks away. And this is where Romney's man, Joseph Cofer Black,
comes in. He was the partner in crime of John Brennan, (the Deep State Master), as well as
being Mitt Romney's National Security Advisor. Bad news for Mittens. And Cofer Black is the
reason Romney is desperate to have President Trump's real investigation shut down. As Obama's
CIA Director, John Brennan was also in charge of the dirty tricks campaign against
then-candidate, Donald Trump. All of that has now been uncovered by investigative reporters
Gregg Jarrett ( The Russia Hoax) and Peter Schweizer ( Secret Empires) with
enough references to satisfy Editor Harry and Nurse Ratched.
Amazingly, the plot was actually laid by the Deep State in 2014 before they even knew Trump
would be Hillary's foil in 2016. I found that part pretty amazing. The Ukraine/Russia story was
created for whomever was the candidate to run against Hillary Clinton.
For John Brennan, it really didn't matter to him who ran on the Republican side. He just
cared that whomever it was, lost to the Deep State's choice – Hillary Clinton. Brennan,
Black, James Clapper, James Comey and a host of others were prepared to make sure of it. It was
exposed just last week that Brennan flew under a fake passport to avoid detection on his trip
to set this up in Eastern Europe as early as 2015. There is no explanation for a CIA Director
to do this unless what he was doing was illegal.
Now let's go back to Joseph Cofer Black. He is Romney's Ukraine man, and Brennan's long-time
associate who is still covering here in Eastern Europe (from where I am reporting) for the Deep
State in America. Brennan came back Stateside from the Saudi Arabian CIA office the year after
arranging for the 9/11 attackers to get into America. So what did he do? He took over CIA
Counterintelligence from his partner, Cofer Black. Convenient, eh? The Counterintelligence guy
who 'missed' the 16 warnings on 9/11, and the guy who granted the attackers visas to get into
the U.S. to take pilot training and do it, swap jobs, perhaps to prevent detection? Well it
worked until now.
And history repeats. The tag team is back at it. Barack Obama chose (or was told) to make
John Brennan his CIA Director. Brennan then sets up the Russian hoax through the Ukraine
government and intel operatives covertly in 2015 to target any candidate who might face Hillary
Clinton in 2016.
Once Trump became the Republican candidate, President Obama authorised illegal spying on
Trump's campaign, we now know, because it was labeled a 'counterintelligence operation' which
can only be authorised by a President.
The script for the Ukraine/Russia hoax was actually written back in 2007 to use against
Republican candidate, John McCain. It was temporarily deployed but then shut down and recycled
when it was clear RINO McCain would get his ass handed to him by Obama in 2008 without CIA
involvement.. So, Brennan decided to use the script in 2016. The Republican's candidate would
be targeted using the same plan, according to one of Obama's own secret service agents, now
author, Dan Bongino, in his new book, Exonerated (just out last week).
The original script was written by Fusion GPS owner, Glenn Simpson. That's the same man and
company who would be paid $12 million by the Clinton Campaign, The Democrat National Committee
and the FBI in 2016 for "the Steele dossier" that caused the Russia Hoax against Trump --
though actually written years earlier. Glenn Simpson simply changed the names.
Unfortunately, there was a problem. Socialist Bernie Sanders was leading the Democrats side
over the Chosen, Hillary, and had to be eliminated. To achieve this, the Clintons literally did
a forced takeover of The Democrat National Committee and its funds. They immediately cut off
Hillary's rival, Bernie Sander's campaign (as admitted by former DNC Director, Donna Brazille,
on television) eliminating Bernie from the race.
John Brennan then began leaking the 'dossier' to Congressional Democrats, including
then-[Senate Minority Leader], Harry Reid and their media co-conspirators to begin the take
down of the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump. Ironically, Brennan also leaked the fake
dossier to Sen. John McCain, it's original target, and McCain leaked it back to its original
source -- the FBI -- to apply for warrants to spy on Trump using their own laundered
information. The FBI literally paid for the fabricated information, leaked it to the media and
politicians who hated Trump, then used their reports and that dossier when fed back to them, to
get warrants to spy on Trump. But then the kimchee hits the fan for real. Trump gets elected!
So, who jumps over to Ukraine to protect the conspiracy from being found out? Brennan's 9/11
partner, Joseph Cofer Black
Within days of Trump's inauguration was immediately put in place in Ukraine to prevent
anyone from talking. The Board of Burisma Holdings -- the same centre of Ukraine corruption
used by Joe Biden in 2014 to enrich his kid -- was the base from which to shield the Democrat
origins of the Russia Hoax and its intel roots from any real investigation.
By February of 2017, Cofer Black was a voting member of the Board of Burisma. You'll hear
the screams around the world this week as the democrats realise that Trump has taken this
investigation on personally rather than leaving it to the deep state vermin. It's all starting
to fit together now, isn't it? So, here's what to expect.
Yes. There will be wailing a-plenty and gnashing of teeth over coming days, and this is the
point where the president's security needs to be at an all-time high, cause The Deep State is
spinning out of control and desperate. If the new leaders of the nations that aided Brennan,
Black and the Dems -- all of whom are admirers of POTUS -- have investigated the crimes of
their predecessors as Trump asked, he likely has the evidence on his desk rather than having it
hidden by the Deep State criminals.
This past Friday, it became known that President Trump had not only launched his own
investigation with foreign leaders into the 2016 Election tampering, but that it was almost
complete. As soon as that happened, the freak-out began. At 65 years of age, I've not seen one
quite like it. The Deep State was and is in paroxysms of unmitigated fear and psychosis. They
ramped up an immediate media assault using the usual outlets -- CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times
and Washington Post -- and the same exact leak specialists who put America through The Russia
Hoax.
The media spectacle on Friday past was immediately followed with a sua sponte
announcement by Speaker Pelosi that she was impeaching the President -- a power she does not
possess no matter how many cocktails she's had. A completely false narrative was spun of what
was said in President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, knowing Trump
would never allow them to have a copy of the classified transcript to disprove their lies. But
guess what? Within 24 hours, in another act of unprecedented transparency The Donald did just
that. He released the full, unredacted transcript of the call, publicly proving them all to be
Pinocchios. And I just watched his Attorney, Rudy Giuliani, announce that he is drafting a
lawsuit to file against those who lied about his client, Donald Trump -- another unprecedented
event to my knowledge.
For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job
keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous "whistleblower" who triggered
impeachment proceedings against President Trump -- even though his identity is an open secret
inside the Beltway.
Eric Ciaramella as a class of 2004 Connecticut prep student: He later
moved on to Yale and the White House. Now he could be at the center of an impeachment storm.
Chase Collegiate School, Waterbury, Conn./The Magpie
More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that's known
publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House
and is now back working at the CIA.
But the name of a government official fitting that description -- Eric Ciaramella -- has
been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge
of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not
involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed,
Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to
redact his name from all deposition transcripts.
RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public's interest in learning
details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status
as a "whistleblower" is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the
president, one who has "some indicia of an arguable political bias in favor of a rival
political candidate" -- as the Intelligence Community Inspector General
phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over
from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former
CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia "collusion"
investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Joe Biden: Invited Ciaramella
to state luncheon with Italian premier. Also invited: Brennan, Comey, Clapper. AP Photo/Matt
Rourke
Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in
the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has
since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
"He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC
official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
Also, Ciaramella huddled for "guidance" with the staff of House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom
Schiff's office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the
impeachment inquiry.)
And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up
dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for
meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a
Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign
to the Russian government. "He knows her. He had her in the White House," said one former
co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
Alexandra Chalupa: DNC
oppo researcher was invited to the Obama White House by Ciaramella. Afric Vision
NouvelleTV/YouTube
Documents
confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella
in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials
lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
With Ciaramella's name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so
high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on
him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have
been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the
whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter
feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The
mainstream media are also aware of his name.
Fred Fleitz, Trump adviser: "Everyone knows who
he is." fredfleitz.com/Wikimedia
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is," said Fred Fleitz, a
former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from
the media.
Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation's capital remains
uncharacteristically -- and curiously -- mum, especially considering the magnitude of this
story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.
Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a "corrupt" and "biased" media trying to
protect the whistleblower from due scrutiny about his political motives. They also complain
Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower
protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity –
and doesn't cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing
him would put him and his family "at risk of harm," although government security personnel have
been assigned to protect him.
"They're hiding him," Fleitz asserted. "They're hiding him because of his political
bias."
A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the
National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice,
President Obama's national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice
president.
Susan Rice: Ciaramella worked under Obama's national security adviser. AP
Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File
Federal
records show that Biden's office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the
vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included
Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James
Clapper.
Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to
Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was
politically connected inside the Obama White House.
Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in
2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama's "point man" for Ukraine. A Yale
graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been
assigned to the NSC by Brennan.
He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC,
eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.
"He was moved over to the front office" to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White
House official, where he "saw everything, read everything."
The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new
Republican president's foreign policies. "My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and
very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine," he
said. "He didn't exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing
to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president's policies."
"So I wouldn't be surprised if he was the whistleblower," the official said.
In May 2017, Ciaramella went "outside his chain of command," according to a former NSC
co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump
happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing
Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President
Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier.
Contents of the email appear to have ended up in the media, which reported Trump boasted to
the Russian officials about firing Comey, whom he allegedly called "crazy, a real nut job."
In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative, according to the
research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by
RealClearInvestigations.
Ciaramella allegedly argued that "President Putin suggested that President Trump fire
Comey," the report said. "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used
to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to
investigate 'Russia collusion.' "
In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Putin.
Ciaramella's email was cited in a footnote in his report, which mentions only
Ciaramella's name, the date and the recipients "Kelly et al." Former colleagues said the main
recipient was then-Homeland Security Director John Kelly..
House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Adam Schiff: "Whistleblower" complaint amounts to impeachable offense. AP Photo/J.
Scott Applewhite
Ciaramella left the Trump White House soon after Mueller was appointed. Attempts to reach
Ciaramella were unsuccessful, although his father said in a phone interview from Hartford,
where he is a bank executive, that he doubted his son was the whistleblower. "He didn't have
that kind of access to that kind of information," Tony Ciaramella said. "He's just a guy going
to work every day." The whistleblower's lawyers did not answer emails and phone calls seeking
comment. CIA spokesman Luis Rossello declined comment, saying, "Anything on the whistleblower,
we are referring to ODNI." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond
to requests for comment.
In his complaint ,
the whistleblower charged that the president used "the power of his office to solicit
interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election." Specifically, he cited a
controversial July 25 phone call from the White House residence in which Trump asked Ukraine's
new president to help investigate the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation the Obama
administration initiated against his campaign, citing reports that "a lot of it started with
Ukraine," where the former pro-Hillary Clinton regime in Kiev worked with Obama diplomats and
Chalupa to try to "sabotage"
Trump's run for president.
Later in the conversation
, Trump also requested information about Biden and his son, since "Biden went around bragging
that he" had fired the chief Ukrainian prosecutor at the time a Ukrainian oligarch, who gave
Biden's son a lucrative seat on the board of his energy conglomerate, was under investigation
for corruption.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff argued the
whistleblower's complaint, though admittedly based on second-hand information, amounts to an
impeachable offense, and they subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry that has largely
been conducted in secret.
The whistleblower filed his "urgent" report against Trump with the I.C. inspector general on
Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.
Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff's Democratic staff for "guidance." At first, the
California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet
with the whistleblower early on.
Sean Misko: One of Ciaramella's closest allies at the NSC,
now on Schiff's staff. Center for a New American Security
Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella's closest allies at the NSC -- both
whom were also Obama holdovers -- to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in
August -- the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.
During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed
handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks
questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings
told RealClearInvestigations.
Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses
about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff
and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any
transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.
"Their reaction tells you something," said one official familiar with the inquiry.
For example, sources said Ciaramella's name was invoked by GOP committee members during the
closed-door testimony of former NSC official Fiona Hill on Oct. 14. Ciaramella worked with
Hill, another Obama holdover, in the West Wing.
During Tuesday's deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats shut down a line of
inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing the identity of the whistleblower.
Republicans wanted to know with whom Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns
regarding Trump's call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the
questions, which
reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans.
Determined to keep the whistleblower's identity secret, Schiff recently announced it may not
be necessary for him to testify even in closed session. Republicans argue that by hiding his
identity, the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they
worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it's exposed.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, asserted the American
people have the right to know the person who is trying to bring down the president for whom 63
million voted.
"It's tough to determine someone's credibility if you can't put them under oath and ask them
questions," he said.
Added Jordan: "The people want to know. I want to get to the truth."
Rep. Louis Gohmert:
Ciaramella was "supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its
most corrupt, and he didn't blow any whistles on their corruption." AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
In an open House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
seemingly out of left field asked a witness about "Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National
Security Council," in what the Washington press corps took as a bid to out the whistleblower.
He later told a Dallas radio station he knew the whistleblower's name. "A lot of us in
Washington know who it is," Gohmert said, adding he's a "very staunch Democrat" who was
"supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt,
and he didn't blow any whistles on their corruption."
The Washington Post ran a
news story over the weekend critical of Republicans for allegedly trying to "unmask" the
whistleblower, for attempting to do the job journalists would normally do. Last week, the paper
ran an
op-ed by the whistleblower's attorneys claiming he was no longer relevant to the inquiry
and beseeching the public to let their client slip back into obscurity.
For its part, the New York Times ran a
story last month reporting details about the whistleblower's background, but stopped short
of fully identifying him, suggesting it didn't know his politics or even his name. "Little else
is known about him," the paper claimed.
On Thursday, Democrats plan a House vote on new impeachment-inquiry rules that would give
Republicans for the first time the ability to call their own witnesses. Only, their requests
must first be approved by the Democrats. So there is a good chance the whistleblower, perhaps
the most important witness of all, will remain protected from critical examination.
This and all other original articles created by RealClearInvestigations may be republished
for free with attribution. (These terms do not apply to outside articles linked on the
site.)
Yesterday, Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, an officer on loan to the National
Security Agency, testified before Congress on his feelings, and I'll underscore that word
because we already know the facts, about President Trump's conversation with Ukraine President
Zelensky. I'm pretty much in agreement with my colleague Bonchie (see
Alexander Vindman's Impeachment Testimony Is Largely Irrelevant, Stop Freaking Out About It
), as we already know what was said and what happened, the color commentary of a mid-grade
officer might sell some papers and get some clicks and create a new hero for the #Resistance,
but it is pretty close to meaningless.
Two major things came out of this: a full-throated hagiographic defense of Vindman by the
left and the media and NeverTrumpo and fewer, but vitriolic attacks, on Vindman.
This is my two cents on the controversy.
The hero tag gets used rather indiscriminately and so it has been applied to Vindman. I
don't know the guy but I can tell you a lot about him by his ribbon bar.
This is what we have:
First row:
Purple Heart
Defense Meritorious Service Medal w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
Second row:
Meritorious Service Medal
Army Commendation Medal w/3 Oak Leaf Clusters
Army Achievement Medal w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
Third row:
National Defense Service Medal
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Korean Defense Service Medal
Army Service Ribbon
Army Overseas Service Ribbon w/numeral 2
There are no ribbons for combat heroism. The absence of a Bronze Star, with or without 'V'
device, indicates he got an Army Commendation Medal during his combat tour. I won't throw shade
on the "wrong time, wrong place" medal (my ROTC detachment commander was an SF officer who had
six Purple Hearts, that's what he called them), the Purple Heart, but I will note that Dan
Crenshaw got one and lost an eye. John Kerry got three and never went to a hospital. He's
served at least two tours as a field grade officer in a high-level Defense staff position. He's
only served overseas twice, once in Iraq and once in Korea. It is sort of a shock to me to see
an infantry officer wear an Army Achievement Medal. I have three and never bothered putting
them on my ribbon bar.
The primary reason I'm even mentioning this is because this bullsh** is circulating on
Twitter. It is mostly false, starting with his bio. He was commissioned via Army ROTC in
January 1999. He has never completed the Special Forces Officers Qualification Course. He has
no prior enlisted service. He has very few of the 'scare badges' attributed to him in this
tweet. This is not a ding on Vindman but it shows the lack of honesty and absence of integrity
common to his loudest defenders.
He's a foreign area officer which means he has not served in a combat unit since he was in
Iraq. I was selected to be an FAO, but I sobered up and applied for reclassification into
Operations, Plans, and Training.
Without getting into parsing words over what "hero" means, we know with great certainty that
his service in combat was average, it was meritorious but pedestrian. NTTAWWT.
The veneration for guys in uniform only attaches to people who are supporting leftist
causes. Oliver North, an actual combat stud, and John Poindexter, who had a distinguished
career, were vilified. Tulsi Gabbard was a hero until she took a 2×4 to Kamala Harris.
Now she's a Russian tool. James Comey and Robert Mueller are heroes. Michael Flynn, a guy with
an outstanding record and who, personally, saved dozens if not hundreds of American lives by
his reforming of tactical intelligence operations, is facing prison based on an indictment that
hardly passes the laugh test.
So spare me the hero bunkum. And regardless, as Greg "Pappy" Boyington was fond of saying,
"Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum." He is right more often than we'd care to admit. The
man most responsible for the defeat of the British Army at Saratoga and turning the tide of the
war in favor of our young nation was none other than Benedict Arnold.
There is also an effort, like
this by obnoxious RINO Charlie Dent , to drape the robe of patriotism on Vindman. As Samuel
Johnson noted a couple of centuries ago, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." He
was referring to the practice of Prime Minister William Pitt and his administration of excusing
all of their actions by an appeal to patriotism. That is what I see going on with the
impeachment process. A truly illegitimate attempt to overturn an election is underway and its
fluffers call it patriotic. Vindman may very well be a patriot. Or he could be a time-serving
staff officer working his way towards a consulting job upon retirement. Or he could be any
number of other things. I don't know and neither does Charlie Dent or anyone else opining on
the subject. What I do know is that a lot of us have had our patriotism questioned constantly
for the past three years, so sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As they say,
#NewRules, baby. I'm not going to question Vindman's patriotism but I'm certainly not going to
run interference for him either.
While I don't subscribe to questioning Vindman's loyalty, neither do I think deification is
in order. In my view, there is a huge open question about the degree to which he's
collaborating in a partisan hit on the Commander-in-Chief. It is fair–if not
required–to ask the questions and Vindman should be answering them publicly and with
alacrity.
At a minimum, we need to know why Vindman tried to
change the transcript of the president's phone call . We need to know why a FARA registered
agent of the Ukraine government lists him as among the people they have lobbied and if that is
considered acceptable for military officers on the National Security Council. If is it
acceptable, how does Vindman's record of contacts with one known Ukrainian agent compare to
those of his peers?
And we need a clear answer on Vindman's contact with agents of the Ukraine government to
help them develop strategies to improve their standing with the administration:
I don't know about the propriety of that; it becomes decidedly improper unless he was
cleared to do so and debriefed his superiors on the conversations. This NYT clip reads, to me,
like he didn't have clearance to help the Ukraine government develop negotiating strategies and
he's trying to elide past it now. I have to say that Chuck Schumer pulling out all the stops to
protect him sort of starts the sirens flashing: Ironically, as all military officer promotions
require the president to forward a list to the Senate for their advise and consent role, if
Trump doesn't want Vindman promoted there is precious little anyone can do about it until after
Trump leaves office.
We are also being told that criticizing Vindman is anti-Semitic. But, somehow, labeling
Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset is not anti-Hindu.
This is the bottom line. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman decided to inject himself into the
impeachment process. That is his right, and he might see it as his responsibility. But he
should have had no illusion about how this was going to play out. I, and many others, view the
impeachment process as part of a slow-motion coup that began shortly after November 6, 2016. To
expect to enlist for the coup attempt and be treated with kid gloves is simply not reasonable.
There are legitimate questions about Vindman's actions and motives and his service does not
give him access to the Immunity Idol.
In addition to the fired Shokin's claim that President Poroshenko warned him not to
investigate Burisma because it was not in the Bidens' interest, the notes say, the prosecutor
also said he "was warned to stop" by the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt .
The State Department declined to explain this assertion about Pyatt, who was ambassador to
Ukraine from 2013 to 2016 and now is Ambassador to Greece. The Biden presidential campaign did
not respond to a request for comment.
Recounting Shokin's version of events, the notes say he "was called into Mr. Poroshenko's
office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter
Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to
Ukraine." Poroshenko later told Shokin that "he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was
being withheld by Joe Biden," the Giuliani interview notes say.
Trump has claimed that Vice
President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin because he was investigating
his son's employer.
"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really
unfair," the president said, referring to Shokin in his July 25 phone call with Ukraine's
president, Volodymyr Zelensky. That call triggered the current impeachment crisis after a CIA
whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden in
return for military aid.
A Politico
investigation in 2017 found that officials in Poroshenko's government helped Hillary
Clinton allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, notably Paul Manafort,
who before joining the Trump campaign was a political consultant for ousted Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych.
Poroshenko's administration insisted at the time that Ukraine stayed neutral in the
race.
"... Update : House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) responded to Monday's announcement, tweeting "It's been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry. Today's backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment . ..."
"... The resolution will authorize the disclosure of deposition transcripts as well as set forth due process rights for President Trump, according to Pelosi. It will also establish a procedure for open hearings. ..."
Update : House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) responded to Monday's announcement,
tweeting "It's been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry.
Today's backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. We will
not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment ."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Monday that a vote will be held this Thursday "that
affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our
committees" as part of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry, according to the
Washington Post .
House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA) said the vote would "ensure transparency
and provide a clear path forward" as their investigations continue.
The resolution will authorize the disclosure of deposition transcripts as well as set forth
due process rights for President Trump, according to Pelosi. It will also establish a procedure
for open hearings.
Pelosi sent the following letter to House Democrats (emphasis ours):
Dear Democratic Colleague,
For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have
made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry "lacks the
necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding." They argue that, because the
House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.
Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of
Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Multiple past impeachments have
gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed
that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be
"an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority." More than 300 legal
scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that " the Constitution does not mandate
the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of
Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins. "
The Trump Administration has made up this argument -- apparently out of whole cloth -- in
order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal
agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized
subpoenas.
This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing
investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment
inquiry , including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any
other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.
This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people,
authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence
to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth
due process rights for the President and his Counsel. We are taking this step to eliminate
any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness
testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of
Representatives.
Nobody is above the law.
The announcement comes after former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman - who
served as a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton - filed a Friday lawsuit
seeking guidance from a federal judge as to whether he should follow the advice of the
executive branch, which has instructed him not to attend, or Congress, according to the Post
.
As the judge has yet to rule on his request, Kupperman declined to appear.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said that a
former deputy national security adviser had "no basis in law" to skip a deposition Monday and
that his failure to appear was further evidence of Trump's efforts to obstruct Congress. -
Washington Post
Kupperman was on the line when President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky
held a July 25 discussion in which Trump requested investigations into Democratic rival Joe
Biden, as well as allegations of Ukrainian election meddling in 2016 to benefit Hillary
Clinton.
"... You'd think that the failure of Mr. Mueller's extravaganza might have chastened them just a little - a $32 million-dollar effort starring the most vicious partisan lawyers inside-the-Beltway, 2,800 subpoenas issued over two years, 500 search warrants exercised, and finally nothing whatever to pin on Mr. Trump - except the contra-legal assertion that now he must prove his innocence. ..."
"... General Michael Flynn , for ditto? You may have noticed that General Flynn's case is shaping up to be the biggest instance of prosecutorial misconduct since the Dreyfus affair (France, 1894-1906, which badly-educated Americans most certainly know nothing about). ..."
"... Last week he put out a narrative that US Chargé d'Affaires to Ukraine Bill Taylor fired a gun-that-smoked fer sure in testimony. Except, of course, as per Mr. Schiff's usual practice, he refused to issue any actual transcript of the interview in evidence, while there are plenty of indications that Mr. Taylor's second-hand gossip was roundly refuted under counter-questioning by the non-Jacobin minority members of the House intel Committee. ..."
"... Mr. Schiff's pattern lo these many months of strife has been to claim ultimate proof of wrongdoing only to have it blow up in his face. It's a face that many Americans are sick of seeing and hearing from, and I am serenely confident that before this colossal scandal is resolved, the Congressman from Hollywood will be fatally disgraced, as was his role-model, Senator Joseph McCarthy, before him. ..."
Judging by the volume of intemperate emails and angry social media blasts that come my way, the party of impeachment seems to
be inhaling way too much gas from the smoking guns it keeps finding in the various star chambers of its inquisition against you-know-who.
You'd think that the failure of Mr. Mueller's extravaganza might have chastened them just a little - a $32 million-dollar effort
starring the most vicious partisan lawyers inside-the-Beltway, 2,800 subpoenas issued over two years, 500 search warrants exercised,
and finally nothing whatever to pin on Mr. Trump - except the contra-legal assertion that now he must prove his innocence.
When you state just that, these frothing hysterics reply that many background figures - if not the Golden Golem of Greatness himself
- were indicted and convicted of crimes by Mr. Mueller's crew. Oh yes!
The Russian troll farm called the Internet Research Agency was indicted for spending $400,000 on Facebook ads (and never extradited
or tried in a court-of-law). Pretty impressive victory there!
The hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails by "Russia"? Still just alleged, never proven, with plenty of shady business around
the search for evidence.
Paul Manafort, on tax evasion of money earned in Ukraine, 2014? We'll see about that as the whole filthy business of the 2014
Ukraine regime change op under Mr. Obama gets reviewed in the months ahead.
George Papadopoulos for lying to the FBI? Stand by on that one, too; still a developing story.
General Michael Flynn , for ditto? You may have noticed that General Flynn's case is shaping up to be the biggest instance
of prosecutorial misconduct since the Dreyfus affair (France, 1894-1906, which badly-educated Americans most certainly know nothing
about).
To set the record straight I'm forced to repeat something that these New Age Jacobins seem unable to process: you don't have to
be a Trump cheerleader to be revolted by the behavior of his antagonists, which is a stunning spectacle of bad faith, dishonesty,
incompetence, and malice -- and is surely way more toxic to the American project than anything the president has done . Every time
I entertain the complaints of these angry auditors, I'm forced to remind myself that these are the same people who think that "inclusion"
means shutting down free speech, who believe that the US should not have borders, who promote transsexual reading hours in the grammar
schools, and who fiercely desire to start a war with Russia.
That's not a polity I want to be associated with and until it screws its head back on, I will remain the enemy of it. In fact,
in early November I'm traveling to New York City, where the Jacobin city council has just made it a crime to utter the phrase illegal
alien in a public place, with a $250,000 penalty attached. I challenge their agents to meet me in Penn Station and arrest me when
I go to the information kiosk and inquire if they know what is the best place in midtown Manhattan to meet illegal aliens.
The volume of Jacobin hysteria ratcheted up to "11" late last week when the news broke that the Attorney General's study of RussiaGate's
origins was upgraded to a criminal investigation, and that a voluminous report from the DOJ Inspector General is also about to be
released. What do you suppose they're worried about? Naturally the Jacobins' bulletin board, a.k.a The New York Times ,
fired a salvo denouncing William Barr -- so expect his reputation to be the next battle zone for these ever more desperate fanatics.
Talk of preemptively impeaching him is already crackling through the Twitter channels. That will be an excellent sideshow.
Meanwhile, how is Rep, Adam Schiff's secret proceeding going?
Last week he put out a narrative that US Chargé d'Affaires to Ukraine Bill Taylor fired a gun-that-smoked fer sure in testimony.
Except, of course, as per Mr. Schiff's usual practice, he refused to issue any actual transcript of the interview in evidence, while
there are plenty of indications that Mr. Taylor's second-hand gossip was roundly refuted under counter-questioning by the non-Jacobin
minority members of the House intel Committee.
Mr. Schiff's pattern lo these many months of strife has been to claim ultimate proof of wrongdoing only to have it blow up
in his face. It's a face that many Americans are sick of seeing and hearing from, and I am serenely confident that before this colossal
scandal is resolved, the Congressman from Hollywood will be fatally disgraced, as was his role-model, Senator Joseph McCarthy, before
him.
"... Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him. ..."
"... Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure. ..."
"... These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot. ..."
"... Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally just a few hours before MH370 went missing ..."
"... Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable papers..How democracy working in Libya? ..."
"... Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do the homework all of you readers. ..."
"... All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because that's exactly what they're doing. ..."
"... She was never supposed to lose. ..."
"... DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Biden Family foundation. ..."
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one.
During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen,
and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American and
Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural
gas, sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians got used to pay
pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for
heating and cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and
very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new president
Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and
heating; and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices, President Poroshenko
demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be
considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai
Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's
appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma
trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and
150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't
be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours to close the case against his son.
Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko
was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could
not keep his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave
evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers
in connection with another case, Firtash case.
... ... ...
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is
Amos J. Hochstein, a protege of former VP Joe Biden, who has served
in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine.
Together with an American citizen Andrew Favorov, the Deputy Director
of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by
Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go
via Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while the margin is collected
by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price
will be paid by the Ukrainians, while profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party.
A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta,
producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian
ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with
Audrius Butkevicius, the former Minister of Defence (1996
to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now
is a member of the notorious Institute for Statecraft, a UK
deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations, subversion of the democratic process and promoting
Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war. In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed
to the Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of his troops from Lithuania.
Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In 1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000
USD from a senior executive of a troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested on receipt of the bribe, had been
sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated the feat in 2003 during the Rose
Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought
to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars' grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught fire; allegedly
thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind:
the previous one, equally huge, torched Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios
investigated the fires, he discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't destroyed
by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the
hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this
enormous operation was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the Minister of Defence
Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr Biden. (They say Mr Matios
was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably
just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians.
The Plundering Of Ukraine By Corrupt American Democrats. Whats new. The plundering of Syria - the Golan. Genie oil - Every
leading democrat name is on that Shareholder's list. Plundering of Serbia. Kosovo, its Gold mines and Minerals. Speciality per
Madeleine Albright . Wesley Clark and the Clintons. Sniff around where the Libyan gold went....not Fort Knox
These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look
like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot.
Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally
just a few hours before MH370 went missing .
Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable
papers..How democracy working in Libya?
Fantastic article. Thanks for Israel. Thanks God, whatever you believe or not, majority of the World citizens are good and
friendly. Were did not nuke each other despite 1% of our corrupted elites. They hold about 90% of media, can give Hollywood Oscar
Price or Nobel Price to my lovely dog. If I paid them.
Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today
the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay
to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do
the homework all of you readers.
You will NOT see once micron of this on the lame stream Media.....nor out of the mouths of Dems anywhere.....THIS info if true
should ensure the Dem corrupt Party is dissolved and a new one using pro-USA model is erected.
That we have seen little of this story in the Wall Street Journal nor Fox News shows just who controls those networks for sure.....This
story MUST become a part of the Congressional record....ASAP.....and ALL these folks no matter which Party MUST be held accountable
for lost US Funds...OUR TAX DOLLARS. Imagine what could be done with 3 BILLION for OUR Vets or the homeless......yet you see little
exposure of this corruption any where in US papers or even conservative outfits...????
All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being
indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because
that's exactly what they're doing.
DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation.
Ukraine: Biden Family foundation.
Corrupt American Democrats AND Corrupt American Republicans . . . who gave Standing Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia,
United States Capitol for the Murders and Burning Humans Alive. United States President Trump never received 5 minute Standing
Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia, United States Capitol by the Capitalist Political Party composed of two factions:
Corrupt American Republicans AND Corrupt American Democrats.
So Shamir says that Tsarev is claiming Daniluk is the "whistleblower"? A foreigner can be a whistleblower?
And " Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was informed that there is an
order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev." ?? An order to arrest Daniluk in Washington, is that the claim? Why and who would
arrest him in Washington?
We would all be better off, including the Ukrainians, if they had stayed with Russia, where they were.
My thought about Barr holding fire on Epstein is that he may have known that was a red
herring, false flag, or whatever you want to call it. That whole Epstein affair sounded like
a juicy distraction to me, in the manner of "if it bleeds it leads". When someone actually
dies who is the center of contraversial activity, you may be sure, unfortunately, that
someone, he or another, is getting close to truths that ought not see the light of day.
Somewhat in the nature of the baiting of Putin as Ukraine was beginning its time of troubles.
The old revolutionary dictum "Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes" may have
been in Barr's mind at the time of Epstein's demise.
Certainly such investigations as the one he is involved in take much time to sort out the
who-what-where in terms sufficiently damaging to become a credible enterprise. We have seen
such attempts fail in the past. I hope he takes his time and gets all his ducks in a row
before the hammer falls as fall it must. It is so vital to this country that this attempt
succeed; for if it fails only the shambles of Kiev style fisticuffs in Congress can be the
result. Not pretty.
In b's post we are reminded of the power of the press to misinform. I would suggest we
badly need divestiture of our media from the huge corporations now more wealthy than some
countries. The latter are too powerful in this country now, and they do need to be whittled
down to size. We not only need fact finders, we need eloquent voices to present those facts
to the public. We need free speech!
He is a deep state creature...his father Donald Barr was an OSS guy and original CIA
[which morphed from the wartime OSS]...
Barr senior was also Epstein's mentor and got him his start at the deeply establishment
Dalton School [and probably Epstein's handler as an asset or 'agent' as they are
called]...
So things go a bit deeper than the surface when it comes to Barr junior...and what he is
doing here...
There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore...
I would also agree with the theory that says that these two 'deep' factions ['nationalist'
vs 'globalist'] are at war...with the 'DNC-Hillary-MSM-interventionist faction' possibly on
the decline, but still powerful enough to blow up a lot of the plans that Trump and his deep
backers would like to get done...
Epstein is a whole 'nuther can of worms here and I would not be surprised if he was not
actually dead...Trump himself is deeply entangled with many of the prime players in the
Epstein web...it all depends if he is more useful alive than dead...
Btw...pulling off a deception like a fake death is kindergarten level for these kinds of
operators and the unlimited resources they possess to shape so-called 'reality' as brought to
us on our little screens...
So really I find it kind of silly that the right wingers are looking at Barr as some kind
of White Knight...there really are none of those in these circles...as much as the sheeple
would like to believe that...
re: source of "God has an infinite sense of humor"...
Was told that in 1994[?] conversation w Jerry, a fellow worker, abt the baffling condition
of Mankind. Never heard it before or since. At the time it was one of most incisive and
impinging viewpoints; it still is.
It was said to me dryly, not coy and no smile, almost plaintively as tho it would be
ignored and pass thru unrecognized. I never met a more rational or sharper mind.
Once, I remarked I was looking for an obscure book that was mentioned in another book, as
"1 of the 3 best autobios ever written in English" by someone I never heard of. J:"Who and
what?" Me:"Kropotkin and Revolutionist".
J:"Oh, sure! I think my wife still has a copy" and he brought it in next day.[An awesome
read, too!]
Thanks for your reply! I was also thinking that perhaps it was a cynical observation made
by a stoic son of a Baptist or Methodist Minister, like the retort in M*A*S*H about
how someone like that (Hawkeye, IIRC) got into the Army--"He got drafted," which caused the
audience to erupt in laughter (definitely a context-dependent joke).
flankerbandit 111
"There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore..."
I think this what is occuring. And when Trump says swamp, I think it is the section of the
swamp that this faction believe set the US on a ruinous path.
Good post my friend, no wonder the demoncrazies went berserk over Trump dipping in to
their honeypot. I could never definitively find a reason for those spectacular ammunition
storage bonfires in Ukraine. I figured it was either to disable their sale or cover up
theft.
W. Gruff, thanks for the process insight.
I was long-aware the removal of the Smith-Mundt Act was loaded into the 2012 NDAA. No attempt
on Trump's watch has been made to bring a needed, modern form of it back. I didn't vote for
Trump, and until the damn looney media is reeled back into factual, in-context reporting, it
will remain obvious Trump is only expanding a variety of nefarious things on the absence of
legislation such as the S-M Act.
"... On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired. ..."
"... Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out. ..."
"... Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky. ..."
"... Is the "conspiracy theory" about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election really "debunked"? It is, of course, not. The facts show that the interference happened. It was requested by the Democratic National Committee and was willingly provided by Ukrainian officials. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia , according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. ..."
"... In March 2016 Chalupa went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC and requested help from the Ukrainian ambassador to go after Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. In August 2016 the Ukrainians delivered a secret "black ledger" that allegedly showed that Manafort had illegally received money for his previous work for the campaign of the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych. ..."
"... Serhin A. Leshchenko, the member of the Ukrainian parliament who published the dubious ledger, was rabidly anti-Trump. Shortly after providing the "secret ledger" he talked with the Financial Times and promised to continue to meddle in the U.S. election. The FT headline emphasized the fact: ..."
"... insisting on innocence of Biden will have a political cost. ..."
"... That term "conspiracy theory" has been so widely abused that, to me at least, it now means something that the author wishes were not true but almost certainly is. ..."
"... Joe Biden needs to STFU, and go away. He and his ilk are part of the problem, not the solution. The rulers of America insist on pushing this sycophant for the empire down our throats. And, he can take HRC and her crowd with him. It's high time for some new blood, IF, TPTB, will even allow that to happen, which I very much doubt.... ..."
"... If you were referring to Trump's convo with Zelensky specifically, reasonable people might disagree over whether that was an abuse of power or sleazy and dumb (in being unnecessary)--which of course shouldn't mean the Bidens get a pass here, which none of these young journalists are suggesting. ..."
"... Well, there you have it--proof that BigLie Media indeed specializes in publishing Big Lies that ought to reduce such outlets to the status of Tabloids. Of course, the media is free to lie all it wants within the limits of slander and libel, but most people don't like being lied to particularly over matters of importance. ..."
"... Larry Johnson has a piece at SST on a CIA task force set up to compromise Trump and prevent him becoming president. That Trump avoided all the traps set for him (even the Mueller investigation could pin nothing on Trump) and won the election says a bit for Trump ..."
"... Alexandra Chalupa's connection to the thinktank The Atlantic Council should be borne in mind in the developing discussion in the comments forum. Her sister Irena is or has been a non-resident Senior Fellow there. Irena Chalupa has also been a senior editor at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. ..."
"... Also the founder and CEO of the Crowdstrike company in charge of cybersecurity for the DNC during the 2016 presidential election campaign was Dmitri Alperovich who is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council. It was Crowdstrike who came up with the idea that Trump had to be under the Kremlin's thumb and from there the hysterical witch-hunt and associated actions known as Russiagate began. ..."
"... I'm surprised that at this point in time, Bellingcat has not been included in digging up "dirt" on Trump ..."
"... Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik has been reporting on Alexandra Chalupa's role for a number of years now. I hope he gets proper credit as this story comes out. ..."
"... It seems some corners are coming unglued if the ZH link below is any indication: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-entrapped-flynn-manipulated-evidence-clapper-allegedly-issued-kill-shot-order ..."
"... The take away quote from a Matt Taibbi twit "LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to CNN about the Durham probe: "It's frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done... what we were told to do by the president of the United States." ..."
"... Prescient observation by Aaron Mate : "When CNN & MSNBC now cover the criminal inquiry into conduct of intel officials in Russia probe, they are literally covering their employees -- John Brennan (MSNBC); James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, James Baker (CNN). I avoid the term, but it's appropriate here: Deep State TV." ..."
"... The take away quote: "Joe Biden intervened at least two times on matters his son Hunter's firms was being paid to lobby on, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Examiner." ..."
"... Indeed, the guilty are hiding in plain sight. It appears sinister, and is, but I think its a positive development of late, as it would suggest that big media are scrambling to preserve the status quo by legitimising these deep state actors. ..."
"... Obama orchestrated the regime change operation in Ukraine. As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe. To promote containment of the Russian menace, the US got in bed with Ukrainian fascists and successfully exploited political tensions in that country resulting in the removal of the duly elected Yanukovitch. A right wing billionaire then took the reigns and Putin orchestrated a referendum in Crimea in retaliation that resulted in its return to Russia. The Crimeans were and continue to be happy, happier than the rest of Ukrainians under Kiev neo-fascist free market exploitation. ..."
"... It is natural that neo-fascist Ukrainians would express their disapproval of Trump, who was making nice with Putin. No matter what his motives were, he was bucking US anti-Russian policy. I liked Trump at that time for this willingness to end a Cold War policy sponsored by the US military industrial complex. You can cal it "deep state" if you like. It's not deep and it's not a shadow government. It's the war party. It's the elite profiting from weapons manufacture. Trump has no principles except expedience and his pro-Russian stance is likely owing to the money laundering he's been doing for Russian criminals since he is such a lousy business man. ..."
"... The general charge against Trump is that he was "digging up dirt" on opponents. Well laddy-dah. So what. Welcome to Politics 101. ..."
"... Empires don't act on facts: they are all-powerful, so they sculpt reality as they see fit. What determines this is class struggle: the inner contradictions of a society that results in a given consensus, thus forming a hegemony. ..."
"... Again, not surprised at all. Pro-democratic/anti-Trump media write articles (obviously made-to-order) to whitewash already badly discredited Biden, and present all the arguments in favor of his dark connections with Ukraine as a kind of "conspiracy theory". This is a common practice. Not having sufficient competence to reasonably refute the arguments of opponents, MSM (as well as all sorts of "experts") immediately mark the position of opponents with "conspiracy theory" (there are also other options to choose from: "Putin's agent", "Putin's useful idiot", "Kremlin's agent", "pro-Russian propaganda", etc.). It is assumed that this makes unnecessary/optional (and even "toxic") all further conversations with the opponent (that is, there is no need to answer him, to prove something with facts, etc.), because his position is a "conspiracy theory". ..."
"... Western MSM are actively using this simplest propaganda technique of information warfare. For example, this was the case when reporting on events in Syria - those journalists, the media, experts who did not agree with the lie of MSM about Assad's use of the chemical weapons were declared "conspiracy theorists" (and also "Assad apologists"). This method was also used to cover "the Skripal case" - those who questioned the British authorities' version of the "Novichok poisoning" were declared "conspiracy theorists". ..."
"... This is the way the controlled media works. They provide half a story, half truths, straw-man facts, selective quotes and 'expert' comment, opinion and unwarranted assumption presented as fact that all together cover the spectrum from black to white, spread across the many titles. ..."
"... They also disseminate a fine dusting of lies and actual truth here and there. The result is the public have a dozen 'truths' to pick from, none of which are real, while the outright lies and actual truths get dismissed as not credible and the half-truths and straw-man truths appear to carry some validity. ..."
"... If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge. ..."
"... as Caitlin Johnstone lets to say - who gets to decide what the narrative is here? i don't have an answer for this, but those who appear to be taking a side in all of this - including you with the quote i make - seem to think that it has to be the issue of trumps extortion of Ukraine, verses what appears to me the CIA - Dem party extortion of the ordinary USA persons mind... ..."
"... Has mccarthyism version 2 come to life since the advent of what happened in the Ukraine from 2014 onward?? is the issue of a new cold war with Russia been on the burner for at least 5 or more years here and began before trump was even considered a potential candidate for the republican party? did Russia take back Crimea, which wasn't supposed to happen? is this good for military industrial complex sales? and etc. etc. ..."
"... i am sure biden is small potatoes in the bigger picture here, but if taking a closer examination of what took place in ukraine leading into 2014, with the victoria nulands and geoffrey pyatts and etc. etc. of usa diplomatic corps, usa dept of state and etc. could lead to a better understanding of how the usa has went down the road it has for the past 60 years of foreign policy on the world stage, it would be a good start... so, to me - it ain't about trump.. it is about usa foreign policy and how it has sucked the big one on the world stage for at least since the time of vietnam when i was a teenager.. ..."
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's intervention in the Ukraine and
the Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The
public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even contradicting the facts the media create
an opening for Trump to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
[In late 2018], Giuliani began speaking to current and former Ukrainian officials about the
Biden conspiracy theory, and meeting with them repeatedly in New York and Europe. Among those
officials was Viktor Shokin, a former top Ukrainian prosecutor who was sacked in March, 2016,
after European and U.S. officials, including Joe Biden, complained that he was lax in curbing
corruption. Shokin claimed that he had lost his powerful post not because of his poor
performance but rather because Biden wanted to stop his investigation of Burisma, in order to
protect his son. The facts didn't back this up. The Burisma investigation had been dormant
under Shokin.
Several other
media outlets also made the highlighted claim to debunk the "conspiracy theory". But is it
correct?
We have looked into the claim that Shorkin's investigation against Burisma owner Zlochevsky
was dormant, as the New Yorker says, and found it to be false :
The above accounts are incorrect. Shokin did go after Zlochevsky. He opened two cases against
him in 2015. After he did that Biden and his crew started to lobby for his firing. Shokin was
aggressively pursuing the case. He did so just before Biden's campaign against him went into
a frenzy.
... On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce
Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes
into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times
with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired.
... Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin
started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to
lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the
Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on
vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into
office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.
Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of
show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky.
It is quite astonishing that the false claims, that Shokin did not go after Burisma owner
Zlochevsky, is repeated again and again despite the fact that the public record , in form of a report
by Interfax-Ukraine , contradicts it.
On Thursday Buzzfeed Newswrote
about a different Ukrainian prosecutor who in early 2019 was approached to set up meetings
with President Donald Trump's private lawyer Rudy Giuliani:
[Gyunduz] Mamedov's role was key. He was an intermediary in Giuliani's efforts to press
Ukraine to open investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and the debunked
conspiracy theory about the country's interference in the 2016 presidential election , a
collaboration between BuzzFeed News, NBC News, and the Organized Crime and Corruption
Reporting Project (OCCRP) can reveal.
The OCCRP is funded by the
UK Foreign Office, the US State Dept, USAID, Omidyar Network, Soros' Open Society, the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund and others. Most of these entities were involved in the 2014 coup
against the elected government of the Ukraine.
Is the "conspiracy theory" about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election really
"debunked"? It is, of course, not. The facts show that the interference happened. It was requested by
the Democratic National Committee and was willingly provided by Ukrainian officials.
As Politico reported shortly after Trump had won the election, it was the Democratic
Party organization, the DNC, which had asked the
Ukrainians for dirt that could be used against the campaign on Donald Trump:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly
questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump
aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after
the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his
advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties
between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia , according to people with direct
knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation
and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to
the east, Russia.
The Ukrainian-American who was the go between the DNC and the government of Ukraine had
earlier worked for the Clinton administration:
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named
Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the
Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for
Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to
Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that
time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate Democrats
around the world.
In March 2016 Chalupa went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC and requested help from
the Ukrainian ambassador to go after Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. In August 2016 the
Ukrainians delivered
a secret "black ledger" that allegedly showed that Manafort had illegally received money
for his previous work for the campaign of the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to
Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the
disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included
election officials.
"Paul Manafort is among those names on the list of so-called 'black accounts of the Party
of Regions,' which the detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine are
investigating," the statement said. "We emphasize that the presence of P. Manafort's name in
the list does not mean that he actually got the money, because the signatures that appear in
the column of recipients could belong to other people."
The provenance of the ledger is highly dubious. It was allegedly found in a burned out
office of Yanukovych's old party:
The papers, known in Ukraine as the "black ledger," are a chicken-scratch of Cyrillic
covering about 400 pages taken from books once kept in a third-floor room in the former Party
of Regions headquarters on Lipskaya Street in Kiev.
...
The accounting records surfaced this year, when Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament
who said he had received a partial copy from a source he did not identify, published line
items covering six months of outlays in 2012 totaling $66 million. In an interview, Mr.
Leshchenko said another source had provided the entire multiyear ledger to Viktor M. Trepak,
a former deputy director of the domestic intelligence agency of Ukraine, the S.B.U., who
passed it to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Anti-corruption groups in Ukraine said the black ledger detailing payments was probably
seized when protesters ransacked the Party of Regions headquarters in February 2014.
The pages from the ledger, which had come from anonymous sources probably
supported by John Brennan's CIA , were never proven to be genuine. But the claims were
strong enough to get Manafort fired as campaign manager for Donald Trump. He was later
sentenced for unrelated cases of tax evasion.
Serhin A. Leshchenko, the member of the Ukrainian parliament who published the dubious
ledger, was rabidly anti-Trump. Shortly after providing the "secret ledger" he talked with the
Financial Times and promised to continue to meddle in the U.S. election. The FT
headline emphasized the fact:
The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming
leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider
political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene,
however indirectly, in a U.S. election.
...
Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their efforts
to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed
two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power.
"A Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy," Mr
Leshchenko, an investigative journalist turned MP, told the Financial Times. "For me it was
important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate
who can break the geopolitical balance in the world."
...
If the Republican candidate loses in November, some observers suggest Kiev's action may have
played at least a small role.
A Democratic Party operative asked the Ukrainian ambassador to find dirt on Trump's campaign
manger Paul Manafort. A few month later a secret "black ledger" emerges from nowhere into the
hands of dubious Ukrainian actors including a 'former' domestic intelligence director.
The ledger may or may not show that Manafort received money from Yanukovych's party. It was
never verified. But it left Trump no choice but to fire Manafort. Ukrainian figures who were
involved in the stunt openly admitted that they had meddled in the U.S. election, promised to
do more of it and probably did.
The Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is well documented. How the Buzzfeed
News author can claim that it is a "debunked conspiracy theory" is beyond me.
1. The Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions
of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of
offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.
2. Assistance shall include: (a) taking the testimony or statements of persons; (b)
providing documents, records, and other items; (c) locating or identifying persons or items;
(d) serving documents; (e) transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes;
(f) executing searches and seizures; (g) assisting in proceedings related to immobilization
and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and (h) any other form of
assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State.
3. Assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct that is the subject
of the investigation, prosecution, or proceeding in the Requesting State would constitute an
offense under the laws of the Requested State.
When Trump
asked the current Ukrainian President Zelensky to help with an investigation into the above
matters he acted well within the law and within the framework of the treaty. It was certainly
not illegitimate to do that.
But when mainstream media deny that Biden's interference in Ukraine's prosecutor office is
suspect, or claim that the Ukraine did not interfere in the U.S. elections, they make it look
as if Trump did something crazy or illegal. He does plenty of that but not in this case. To use
it a basis of an 'impeachment inquiry' is political bullshit.
Making these false claims will come back to haunt those media outlets. Sooner or later the
public will recognize that those claims are false. It will lessen the already low trust in the
media even more.
Posted by b on October 26, 2019 at 17:51 UTC |
Permalink
"Sooner or later the public will recognize that those claims are false. It will lessen the
already low trust in the media even more."
More precisely, there exit Trump-friendly media with millions of followers, so insisting
on innocence of Biden will have a political cost. Not to mention leftist media reminiscing
how Senator Biden championed the cause of MBNA (credit cart giant) when it was also a
generous employer of his dear son. Of course, given the size of Delaware, it could be just a
coincidence.
Thanks b for providing the nitty gritty details of this sorry saga. That term "conspiracy
theory" has been so widely abused that, to me at least, it now means something that the
author wishes were not true but almost certainly is.
What is certain is that if Biden is selected as the Dem candidate and ends up as President,
the GOP (if it retains influence in Congress) will open an investigation into his actions on
behalf of his son. Russia-gate is the gift that keeps on giving!
Thanks b, for the reality check.
Joe Biden needs to STFU, and go away. He and his ilk are part of the problem, not the
solution. The rulers of America insist on pushing this sycophant for the empire down our
throats. And, he can take HRC and her crowd with him. It's high time for some new blood, IF, TPTB, will even allow that to happen, which I very
much doubt....
Thanks for another informative and insightful commentary, B. It's like a drink of cool, clean
water after staggering through a volcanic landscape full of fumaroles belching sulfurous
plumes of superheated gas.
Sometimes my hobby horses merrily hop along under me without any effort on my part. I just
hang onto the reins and howl. So: it's bad enough that the US mass-media
consent-manufacturers, aka the CIA/Deep State's "Mighty Wurlitzer", gin up endless propaganda
to discredit the facts you mention; their mission is to fool enough of the public that
there's no "there" there, and prop up Biden's presidential campaign in the bargain.
But what increasingly bugs me is so-called "alternative" news outlets and independent
journalists buying into the spin that Trump and his associates are using the pretext of
investigating corruption as a means to illegally and illicitly "dig up dirt on political
rivals". Put the other way around, they concede that Biden and other Team Obama honchos are
indeed "dirty", and that their Ukraine adventure was reprehensibly illicit or illegal and
self-serving-- but they return to faulting Trump for impermissibly exploiting these
circumstances in order to gain political advantage.
It doesn't surprise me that talented but co-opted journalists like Matt Taibbi are careful
to affirm that Trump et al 's conduct is manifestly an abuse of power. But, sadly,
even journalists like Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, and Michael Tracey have
echoed this rote condemnation.
My guess is that this arises from two acronyms: incipient TDS, which compels even
"alternative" US journalists to regard Trump as the "heel" in the staged
"professional"-wrestling scam of US electoral politics. Also, CYA; I suspect that these
relatively young, professionally vulnerable journalists are terrified of coming off as
"defending" or "excusing" Trump, lest they trigger wrathful excoriation from their peers and
the hordes of social-media users whose custom they cultivate.
This is why I appreciate your clarity and forthrightness on this fraught topic.
Rereading your post, and agreeing with some it, I find I disagree less with its conclusions
than on first reading.
If you were referring to Trump's convo with Zelensky specifically, reasonable people might
disagree over whether that was an abuse of power or sleazy and dumb (in being
unnecessary)--which of course shouldn't mean the Bidens get a pass here, which none of these
young journalists are suggesting.
But where I would disagree is if you were suggesting that Taibbi, Mate and Blumenthal are
making obligatory objections to Trump more generally, in order to curry favour with their
peers. I think each of them would readily reel off lists of things (more substantive than
Ukrainegate -- and probably not including Russia collusion) that they think Trump should be
castigated, impeached and perhaps prosecuted for.
Well, there you have it--proof that BigLie Media indeed specializes in publishing Big Lies
that ought to reduce such outlets to the status of Tabloids. Of course, the media is free to
lie all it wants within the limits of slander and libel, but most people don't like being
lied to particularly over matters of importance.
Larry Johnson has a piece at SST on a CIA task force set up to compromise Trump and prevent
him becoming president.
That Trump avoided all the traps set for him (even the Mueller investigation could pin
nothing on Trump) and won the election says a bit for Trump. He definitely is more than the
twitter reality TV persona that he puts up as a public face.
With the Barr investigation, it looks like the non Trump section of the swamp will be drained
in the near future.
Possibly an irrelevant point, but Shokin's replacement Lutsenko was the prosecutor who
resurrected the "deceased", self declared journalist, Arkady Babchenko. The story was full of
plot twists, involving a Boris German/Herman, who was Russian. B kept Us regaled with events.
I'd post a link, but have witnessed too many thread expansions too risk it.
I think a lot of people give the MSM too much credit. Of course editorials etc. can influence
people's thinking but the media, and journalists in general, are loathed by the people who
voted for Trump. It's a big reason he was elected.
Ort @ 8 said;"It doesn't surprise me that talented but co-opted journalists like Matt Taibbi
are careful to affirm that Trump et al's conduct is manifestly an abuse of power."
Co-Opted, or truthful, depending on what you believe. You, have every right to your
opinion, but, when push comes to shove, think I'll give my opinion being swayed or not, by
giving more credibility to the five names you've decided to "shade".
DJT has a record of behavior, and so do the five you've mentioned. My choice is clear,
I'll believe the five..
Alexandra Chalupa's connection to the thinktank The Atlantic Council should be borne in mind
in the developing discussion in the comments forum. Her sister Irena is or has been a
non-resident Senior Fellow there. Irena Chalupa has also been a senior editor at Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty.
Also the founder and CEO of the Crowdstrike company in charge of cybersecurity for the DNC
during the 2016 presidential election campaign was Dmitri Alperovich who is a Senior Fellow
at The Atlantic Council. It was Crowdstrike who came up with the idea that Trump had to be
under the Kremlin's thumb and from there the hysterical witch-hunt and associated actions
known as Russiagate began.
I'm surprised that at this point in time, Bellingcat has not been included in digging up
"dirt" on Trump, Manafort or anyone Manafort supposedly had connections with who is also
mentioned in the "black ledger" but maybe that's because with the garbage that Bellingcat has
so delivered, Eliot Higgins and company can't be trusted any more. Their masters should have
known though, that when you give your subordinates base material to work with, they can only
come up with base results: garbage in, garbage out.
Thanks for your ongoing documentation of the political criminality in the US b. The recent events are playing out like a two-bit soap opera rerun in a nursing home for
America's brainwashed. Maybe Trump could start a new TV game show called Apprentice Corruption and instead of
saying "Your Fired!" it could be "Your Guilty!"
As an American it is difficult to watch the country that I was taught such good things
about in school be exposed as a criminal enterprise running cover for the elite cult that
owns global private finance and manipulates Western not-so-civilized culture.
I hope all this BS we are going through wakes up enough of the semi-literate public to
overthrow the criminal sect and restore the Founding Fathers motto and concept of E Pluribus
Unum.
Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik has been reporting on Alexandra Chalupa's role for a number of
years now. I hope he gets proper credit as this story comes out.
Given the fact that she got a first hand look at the Outlaw US Empire's injustice system and
its tie-in with BigLie Media, the comments by the now back in Russia Maria Butina carry some legitimate weight that're
worth reading: "'I believe that the Americans are wonderful people, but they have lost their legal
system,' Butina said. 'What is more, they are routinely losing their country. They will lose
it unless they do something'.... "'I am very proud of my country, of my origin,' Butina stressed. 'And I come to realize it
more and more.'"
Should I bold the following, maybe make the lettering red, and put it in all caps:
"They are routinely losing their country."
I know this is an international bar, but the general focus has long been on the Outlaw US
Empire. IMO, Maria Butina is 100% correct. The topic of this thread is just further proof of
that fact. As I tirelessly point out, the federal government has routinely violated its own
fundamental law daily since October 1945. The media goes along with it robotically. And aside
from myself, I know of no other US citizen that's raised the issue--not Chomsky, not Zinn,
not anyone with more credentials and public accessibility than I. I sorta feel like Winston
Smith: Am I the only one who sees and understands what's actually happening?! Well, I've
shared what I know, so I'm no longer alone. But that's not very satisfying, nor is it
satisfactory.
The take away quote from a Matt Taibbi twit
"LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to
CNN about the Durham probe: "It's frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done...
what we were told to do by the president of the United States."
"
Prescient observation by Aaron Mate :
"When CNN & MSNBC now cover the criminal inquiry into conduct of intel officials in
Russia probe, they are literally covering their employees -- John Brennan (MSNBC); James
Clapper, Andrew McCabe, James Baker (CNN). I avoid the term, but it's appropriate here: Deep
State TV."
Sure, he sees it, many of us barflies see it, but it's the public within the Outlaw US
Empire that must see and understand this dynamic. If they don't or won't, then
Butina's words are even more correct--They are losing their country.
The take away quote:
"Joe Biden intervened at least two times on matters his son Hunter's firms was being paid to
lobby on, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Examiner."
The merry-go-round scenario you post would indicate a broken state. Biden's been in office
for 43 years, Trump 3 yrs... the potential for dirt is large, mix it with even larger GOP
vengeance should that scenario arise and this will drag on through the decades.
Part and parcel of democracy. Western style democracy at least. Perhaps others can set
theirs up better, though allways, the achilles heel of democracy is information, or media.
Who oversees ensuring voters recieve accurate information.
It took complaints from the public and investigated them. They did not have power to bring
charges, but for a time findings were made public. Once it got onto a money trail it would
keep following and that would lead to other money trails. It was a state agency and had to
stop at state borders but most money trails led to federal politics. It was defanged when
they came too close to federal politics.
Something like this in a countries constitution could work though it could be corrupted the
same as anything else.
Indeed, the guilty are hiding in plain sight. It appears sinister, and is, but I think its a
positive development of late, as it would suggest that big media are scrambling to preserve
the status quo by legitimising these deep state actors.
It wasn't so long ago these deep state types would rather steer clear of the media. Now
they are out there earning bread driving the narrative. Are these deep state media faces a
tactical last resort...?
Obama orchestrated the regime change operation in Ukraine. As we know from Wayne Madsen's
little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a
suckling babe. To promote containment of the Russian menace, the US got in bed with Ukrainian
fascists and successfully exploited political tensions in that country resulting in the
removal of the duly elected Yanukovitch. A right wing billionaire then took the reigns and
Putin orchestrated a referendum in Crimea in retaliation that resulted in its return to
Russia. The Crimeans were and continue to be happy, happier than the rest of Ukrainians under
Kiev neo-fascist free market exploitation.
It is natural that neo-fascist Ukrainians would express their disapproval of Trump, who was making nice with Putin. No
matter what his motives were, he was bucking US anti-Russian policy. I liked Trump at that time for this willingness to end a
Cold War policy sponsored by the US military industrial complex. You can cal it "deep state" if you like. It's not deep and
it's not a shadow government. It's the war party. It's the elite profiting from weapons manufacture. Trump has no principles
except expedience and his pro-Russian stance is likely owing to the money laundering he's been doing for Russian criminals
since he is such a lousy business man. Putin and other Russian kleptocrats saved Trump boy's bacon. So it's very
confusing when bed actors do good things.
Biden is no doubt quite corrupt. But that's got little to do with Trumps quid pro quo with
Ukraine. You say that Ukrainian interference in US elections is well documented. You don't
offer any documents, b. Anti-Putin Ukrainians were naturally anti-Trump. So what? Where's the
beef? Show me how that little piss ant country that can't even pay its fuel bills and gave
the world Chernobyl, interfered in US elections.
Your defense of Trump is getting tiresome. He's a criminal with no respect for the US
Constitution and he deserves to be impeached. This is not to say that Joe Biden or his drug
addict son are not also shit stains. I am just dismayed that you, an ostensibly intelligent
independent commentator would go to bat for an ignoramus like Trump.
The general charge against Trump is that he was "digging up dirt" on opponents. Well
laddy-dah. So what. Welcome to Politics 101.
President Harry Truman probably received as much flak as any politician ever did,
especially after he canned war-hero General MacArthur. But Truman wasn't a candy-ass current
politician complaining about dirt-digging. No, he gave back more than he got, in spades.
What was "give-em-hell" Harry Truman's attitude? Some Truman quotes:
--"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
--"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform
that I plan to take apart"
--"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he
was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them
would be in jail."
-- "I'll stand by [you] but if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen ."
That's what Trump is doing and will probably continue to do with fake news. (And he coined
the phrase.)
I'll repeat what I posted here some days ago: this is not a battle between truth vs lies, but
between which is the truth that will guide the USA for the forseeable future.
Empires don't act on facts: they are all-powerful, so they sculpt reality as they see fit.
What determines this is class struggle: the inner contradictions of a society that results
in a given consensus, thus forming a hegemony.
It's not that the liberals deny Biden did what he did, but that they disagree with Trump's
interpretation over what he did. This is what the doctrine of the vital center is all about:
some facts are more facts than others, prevailing the one which maintains the cohesion of the
empire.
There's a battle for America's soul; the American elite is in flux: Russia or China?
In 1984 , the narrative was now 100% in your face and everything had to be
manipulated to match it, which apparently hadn't been needed previously. But we aren't told
if that was done as a "last resort." I would think not given continuing polls showing ongoing
distrust of media, thus the difficulty of manufacturing consent. Look at the great popularity
enjoyed by Sanders amongst 18-30 year-olds who get most of their information online or via
social media and the measures being taken to try and manipulate those realms. Then there're
efforts to counter the misinformation and manipulation by numerous activists, many of which
get cited here.
Another thought: They're out front now because the Establishment's deemed the fight to
control the narrative's being lost, and they've been drafted to rectify the situation. If
correct, they ought to keep failing.
The international nature of this bar and its many flies is that mostly (from what I read)
they have an immense respect for the rule of law. It is this singular concept that we trust
will transcend religion and the quasi religiosity of political allegiances.
The rule of law is a deity-like singularity that embraces all beings equally, or
should. Assaulting that legitimate expectation of the law applying equally is what confronts us
daily in so many ways and when it is observed being assaulted by the highest office bearers
in political and corporate life that we barflies get mighty annoyed. The gross vista of assumed immunity demonstrated by Nixon is equaled by the antics of the
Clinton foundation and its Directors. Each and every one of them.
But it is far worse than that as the assault on the rule of law is daily carried out by
the mafias that infest our societies, the corrupt and violent police that cant/wont protect
our citizens, the international warmongering criminal classes that propagandise us to accept
warring as a legitimate exercise of power even though we recognise it as a crime against
humanity.
So when we see the deplorable state of media and jurisprudence and fairness we can only
think as Maria Butina does "that we are routinely losing our countries" and I would add our
civil societies. The latter is vastly more concerning than the former IMO.
Again, not surprised at all. Pro-democratic/anti-Trump media write articles (obviously
made-to-order) to whitewash already badly discredited Biden, and present all the arguments in
favor of his dark connections with Ukraine as a kind of "conspiracy theory". This is a common
practice. Not having sufficient competence to reasonably refute the arguments of opponents,
MSM (as well as all sorts of "experts") immediately mark the position of opponents with
"conspiracy theory" (there are also other options to choose from: "Putin's agent", "Putin's
useful idiot", "Kremlin's agent", "pro-Russian propaganda", etc.). It is assumed that this
makes unnecessary/optional (and even "toxic") all further conversations with the opponent
(that is, there is no need to answer him, to prove something with facts, etc.), because his
position is a "conspiracy theory".
Western MSM are actively using this simplest propaganda technique of information warfare.
For example, this
was the case when reporting on events in Syria - those journalists, the media, experts
who did not agree with the lie of MSM about Assad's use of the chemical weapons
were declared "conspiracy theorists" (and also "Assad apologists"). This method was
also used to cover "the Skripal case" - those who questioned the British authorities'
version of the "Novichok poisoning" were declared "conspiracy
theorists".
When I see words like "conspiracy theory" in the headlines and see what media use them,
then, you know, it's all clear. No chance for such articles/media to be taken seriously.
@32 jadan quote "Show me how that little piss ant country that can't even pay its fuel
bills...." are you familiar with the name porkoshenko, or any other one of the numbers of
kleptomaniacs in positions of power in the ukraine? how do you think they got their, if
''that little piss ant country' can't even pay it's bills? i am sure you are capable of
adding 2 + 2...
b isn't defending trump here.. he's highlighting how corrupt the msm is! it looks like you
missed that.. check the headline..
This is the way the controlled media works. They provide half a story, half truths, straw-man
facts, selective quotes and 'expert' comment, opinion and unwarranted assumption presented as
fact that all together cover the spectrum from black to white, spread across the many titles.
They also disseminate a fine dusting of lies and actual truth here and there. The result is
the public have a dozen 'truths' to pick from, none of which are real, while the outright
lies and actual truths get dismissed as not credible and the half-truths and straw-man truths
appear to carry some validity. If you look for it you can find it applying in almost every
bit of 'news', if it is in any way controversial, whether it is partisan politics, Climate
Change or Brexit to give examples.
As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama
has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas
drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about
Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge.
Ukraine was just one hell of a honey pot that too many couldn't resist visiting.
Kind of like Russia (Uranium One and HRC) or China (Biden for a start).
Giulani is going to be very busy - he still hasn't produced anything that wasn't already
published, but I bet he has much more.
... smart enough to understand and agree that they needed someone like Trump?
Yes, I do think they are smart enough and agreed to act in their collective best interest.
Kissinger first wrote of MAGA in a WSJ Op-Ed in August 2014. Trump entered the race in June
2015, IIRC.
Do you think that Trump - who failed at multiple businesses - just woke up one day and
became a political and geopolitical genius? As a candidate he said he'd "take the oil" and
now, more than 3 years later, he has! LOL.
And JUST AFTER the Mueller investigation formally ends, Trump ONCE AGAIN solicits a
foreign power to interfere in a US election. The biggest beneficiary? Deep State BIDEN! Who
now gets all the media attention.
FYI Wm Gruff makes your same point often: that Deep State mistakes demonstrate that they
couldn't possible pull of a Trump win (if that's what they wanted). I disagree.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I very much doubt that anyone will go to jail - or serve any meaningful jail time if they
do - over the Deep State shenanigans. Nor will people 'wake up' and see how they've been
played anytime soon. Even the smarter, more savvy denizens of the moa bar have much
difficulty connecting dots. Dots that they don't want to see.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas
drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about
Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge
Trump at first threw down the gauntlet to the spies and proclaimed his autocratic
prerogative when God held off the rain for his inauguration (!) but now he would gladly get
on his knees between Gina Haspel's legs if the CIA would only help him stay in power.
What
distinguishes Obama from other presidents is the degree to which he was manufactured. He made
it to the WH without much of a political base. Control of the political context, media and
process, launched Obama to the top. It was fulfillment of the liberal American dream. It was
a great coup. Talk about the "deep state"! It's staring us all in the face.
Oh, but Deep State DID interfere.
FACT: Deep Stater Hillary colluded with DNC against Sanders. ( But she would NEVER
participate in collusion that caused her to lose an election./sarc LOL)
And now pro-Trump people say Clapper, Brennan, and Comey interfered in the 2016 election
OR committed treason by trying to unseat the President!
So we can talk about Deep State interference . . . as long as it follows the partisan
narrative that's been established for us.
I have news for you. USA Presidents use strong coercive persuasive arguments or means of
speech ALL THE TIME. And always have. Sometimes they can be subtle and allude to an action
that might make them happy and sometimes they can be blunt. Its a presidential thing. It is
what statespeople do when they 'negotiate' for their desired outcome.
It is not illegal or corrupt. It is power nakedly exercised. Just because Biden is a
candidate for the same presidential role does not confer immunity for Biden's graft in favor
of his son a few years back. You make a mockery of your position.
One USA President visited Australia once and when confronted with a roadblock of
demonstrators seeking peace in Vietnam demanded of the Australian Premier to "drive over the
bastards". That didn't happen but the President continued to drive all over the Vietnamese
innocents.
Trump may be a grifter and a scumbag but there are warmongers well ahead of him in the cue
for justice. Take Hillary Clinton for example. She is a ruthless killer and the greatest
breach of USA national Security ever with her Secretary of State emails held on an unsecured
server in her closet.
The same powers some call "deep state," are the same powers that have given us ALL modern day
presidents, probably from FDR on.
IMO, they are nothing more, nothing less than the "captains of commerce", who, through the
vast accumulation of wealth by monopoly, buy our "representatives" to legislate rules and
regulations to benefit themselves.
Our so-called "leaders" work for them, with very few exceptions, and transcends all
political parties, and now also the Supreme Court.
$ has been ruled speech, unlimited $ is allowed to be given to politicians for elections.
How could anything but massive corruption take place under this kind of system?
they make it look as if Trump did something crazy or illegal. He does plenty of that but not
in this case.
You suffer from TDS. What on Earth are you talking about here? Plenty of that? Say what?
Why do you undercut your entire point in your article with this little piece of utter
nonsense?
Name one thing that Trump that has done that is illegal. Name one thing that is crazy. Stop apologizing to the crazies by denigrating Trump. Your entire article was all about
how none of the bs is true. And then you put your own brand of bs in there at the end. Cut it
out.
@ 54 jadan... thanks for your comments... i am feeling more philosophical tonight, as i don't
have a gig and have some time to express myself a bit more here.. first off, i don't like any
of these characters - trump, biden, and etc. etc.. i have no horse in the game here, and it
sounds like you don't either.. your comment- "The issue is Trump's extortion of Ukraine, not
Biden's extortion of Ukraine." i can go along with that until i reflect back onto what
increasingly looks like an agenda to get trump even prior to when he was elected, at which
point i want to say why are we only examining trump in all of this? who gets to decide what
the issue is, or as Caitlin Johnstone lets to say - who gets to decide what the narrative is
here? i don't have an answer for this, but those who appear to be taking a side in all of
this - including you with the quote i make - seem to think that it has to be the issue of
trumps extortion of Ukraine, verses what appears to me the CIA - Dem party extortion of the
ordinary USA persons mind...
let me back up... Has mccarthyism version 2 come to life since the advent of what happened
in the Ukraine from 2014 onward?? is the issue of a new cold war with Russia been on the
burner for at least 5 or more years here and began before trump was even considered a
potential candidate for the republican party? did Russia take back Crimea, which wasn't
supposed to happen? is this good for military industrial complex sales? and etc. etc..
so, i don't think it is fair to only consider the latest boneheaded thing trump did when i
consider the bigger picture unfolding here.. now, maybe you think i am a trump apologist... i
am just saying what the backdrop looks like to me here.. i am sure biden is small potatoes in
the bigger picture here, but if taking a closer examination of what took place in ukraine
leading into 2014, with the victoria nulands and geoffrey pyatts and etc. etc. of usa
diplomatic corps, usa dept of state and etc. could lead to a better understanding of how the
usa has went down the road it has for the past 60 years of foreign policy on the world stage,
it would be a good start... so, to me - it ain't about trump.. it is about usa foreign policy
and how it has sucked the big one on the world stage for at least since the time of vietnam
when i was a teenager..
i suppose it depends on the time frame one wants to take.. my time frame will be
considered an evasion of the moment to some, but it is how i see it.. sure, trump is scum,
but the bigger issue to me is the usa's foreign policy agenda.. anything that can pull back
the covers on that would be an extremely good thing... now, perhaps this is the straw that
broke trumps back and the deep state will not tolerate being scrutinized.. that i could
understand, but i am not going to be putting it all on trump as the reason the covers have to
remain on all the shit the usa has been responsible for on the world stage to date and
especially the past 10 years.. i am not able to blame trump for all of that.. and as you can
see, i would prefer to get down to the nitty gritty of who is zooming who here... the msm for
all intensive purposes is complicit in duping the american public.. that to me is the gist of
b's comment here, not that he is cheer-leading for trump.. i just don't see it that way...i'm
definitely not!
The State Department is a neoliberal Trojan horse in the USA government, with strong
globalist ethos. They will sabotage any change of foreign policy. and they intend to kick the
neoliberal can down the road as long as possible. They are the same type of neoliberals as Joe
Biden and Hillary Clinton. Probably less corrupt them those two, but still.
They are imperial soldiers par excellence; these whole life concentrated on serving the
imperial interests, and strive for the strengthening and expansion of neoliberal empire via
opening new markets for the expansions of US based multinationals, staging wars and color
revolutions to overthrows the governments which resists Washington Consensus, etc.
They probably can't be reformed, only fired, or forced into retirement. 72 years old neocon
stooge Taylor is just the tip of the iceberg.
From Wikipedia: He directed a Defense Department think tank at Fort Lesley J. McNair . Following that
assignment, he went to Brussels for a five year assignment as the Special
Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO From 1992 until 2002 Taylor served with the rank of
ambassador coordinating assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union , followed by an assignment in
Kabul coordinating U.S. and
international assistance to Afghanistan . In 2004 he was transferred to
Baghdad as Director of the
Iraq Reconstruction Management Office
Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be United States ambassador to
Ukraine while he was serving as Senior Consultant to the Coordinator of Reconstruction and
Stabilization at the Department of State. [10] He was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was
sworn in on June 5, 2006. At the time Taylor assumed responsibilities at the embassy it was, with
over 650 employees from nine U.S. government departments and agencies, the fifth-largest
bilateral mission in Europe
Notable quotes:
"... As William Taylor's testimony about Ukraine creates shock waves in Washington, a self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has largely operated unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil, or even subvert, the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that should worry Democrats and Republicans alike. ..."
"... One reason is that those who seek to repair the damage caused by a thirty-year deterioration in trust and cooperation face an uphill battle against what recently has been given the colloquial name, "the Blob." The term, coined by Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes, refers to the foreign-policy establishment, mostly located in Washington, DC and constantly focused on the putative decline of American influence abroad. It has been distinguished by its unwillingness, or inability, to reconsider or reprioritize national interests that were first defined after World War II, and then continued, by and large, on auto-pilot after the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... Another reason is that Trump himself has been largely indifferent to who assumes positions in his administration, calculating that by sheer force of will he, and he alone, can be the decider. In September, Trump referred to his search for a fresh national security adviser in the following terms: "It's great because it's a lot of fun to work with Donald Trump, and it's very easy, actually, to work with me. You know why it's easy? Because I make all the decisions. They don't have to work." This insouciant approach has now boomeranged on Trump. ..."
"... Taylor, as his testimony made clear, was able to observe first-hand many of the Trump administration's ham-fisted moves to extract, in one form another, concessions from Ukraine. But however clumsy and counterproductive Trump's moves may have been, Taylor offered an overly simplistic survey of events in the region. Indeed, his Manichean introductory and concluding remarks suggested that he views Russia as an inveterate enemy of America and Ukraine as a white knight. ..."
"... Foreign policy is rarely a morality play and the fairy-tale that Taylor presented was more redolent of a post–Cold War cold warrior who, like too many of his colleagues at the foreign desk, are committed to retrograde thinking, than of an official offering an incisive look at a complex and troubled region. It is not as though Ukraine, where Taylor served as ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, has ever been free from the plague of corruption or murky machinations by local competing factions. Reflexively taking the side of Ukraine does not serve American interests any more than trying to pummel it for political favors. The testimony of Taylor and other State Department witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee is a case in point. ..."
"... ow that the fight between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy is now in the open? ..."
"... Vice President Mike Pence told Laura Ingraham , host of Fox's The Ingraham Angle , "There is no question when President Trump said we were going to drain the swamp, but an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up in the State Department bureaucracy and we're just going to keep fighting it. And we are going to fight it with the truth." For his part, Evans thinks that there is a modicum of hope for improved relations with Moscow. "Taylor will have to resign now," he says. "We might even see a moderation of the uncritical support for Ukraine, as some of the ugly underside starts to emerge, although anti-Russian sentiment is the mother's milk of Congress." ..."
As William Taylor's testimony about Ukraine creates shock waves in Washington, a
self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has largely operated
unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil, or even subvert,
the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that should worry
Democrats and Republicans alike.
President Donald Trump campaigned and was elected on a platform of improved relations with
Russia. Yet, three years after his election, no real improvement has materialized and, if
anything, they have deteriorated. Why?
One reason is that those who seek to repair the damage caused by a thirty-year
deterioration in trust and cooperation face an uphill battle against what recently has been
given the colloquial name, "the Blob." The term,
coined by Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes, refers to the foreign-policy establishment,
mostly located in Washington, DC and constantly focused on the putative decline of American
influence abroad. It has been distinguished by its unwillingness, or inability, to reconsider
or reprioritize national interests that were first defined after World War II, and then
continued, by and large, on auto-pilot after the end of the Cold War. Now Trump is
taking a wrecking ball to
this world order. But a self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has
largely operated unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil,
or even subvert, the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that
should worry Democrats and Republicans alike.
Another reason is that Trump himself has been largely indifferent to who assumes
positions in his administration, calculating that by sheer force of will he, and he alone, can
be the decider. In September, Trump referred to his search for a fresh national security
adviser in the following terms: "It's great because it's a lot of fun to work with Donald
Trump, and it's very easy, actually, to work with me. You know why it's easy? Because I make
all the decisions. They don't have to work." This insouciant approach has now boomeranged on
Trump.
Enter William B. Taylor, Jr. Taylor has been the U.S. Chargé d 'Affaires Ukraine
since June of this year (having previously held the position of ambassador 2006–2009),
and yesterday he testified behind-closed-doors as part of the House impeachment inquiry into
Trump. Taylor, as his testimony made clear, was able to observe first-hand many of the
Trump administration's ham-fisted moves to extract, in one form another, concessions from
Ukraine. But however clumsy and counterproductive Trump's moves may have been, Taylor offered
an overly simplistic survey of events in the region. Indeed, his Manichean introductory and
concluding remarks suggested that he views Russia as an inveterate enemy of America and Ukraine
as a white knight.
In his opening statement, Taylor emphasized that Ukraine is a strategic partner of the
United States that is "important for the security of our country as well as Europe," as well as
a country that is "under armed attack from Russia." Well, yes. But this sweeping description
occludes more than it reveals. Foreign policy is rarely a morality play and the fairy-tale
that Taylor presented was more redolent of a post–Cold War cold warrior who, like too
many of his colleagues at the foreign desk, are committed to retrograde thinking, than of an
official offering an incisive look at a complex and troubled region. It is not as though
Ukraine, where Taylor served as ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, has ever
been free from the plague of corruption or murky machinations by local competing factions.
Reflexively taking the side of Ukraine does not serve American interests any more than trying
to pummel it for political favors. The testimony of Taylor and other State Department witnesses
before the House Intelligence Committee is a case in point.
Will anything change n ow that the fight between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy is
now in the open? On Tuesday night, Vice President Mike Pence told Laura
Ingraham , host of Fox's The Ingraham Angle , "There is no question when President
Trump said we were going to drain the swamp, but an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up
in the State Department bureaucracy and we're just going to keep fighting it. And we are going
to fight it with the truth." For his part, Evans thinks that there is a modicum of hope for
improved relations with Moscow. "Taylor will have to resign now," he says. "We might even see a
moderation of the uncritical support for Ukraine, as some of the ugly underside starts to
emerge, although anti-Russian sentiment is the mother's milk of Congress."
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest .
There was always an element of this in US foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt took the
opportunity of the Navy Sec being out for the weekend to send orders for the Asiatic
Fleet to move to position to attack the Philippines. The returning Sec was appalled, but
it was too late. For that adventure, he was rewarded by becoming President in due
time.
Forty years later, the US oil embargo on Japan happened the same way. The boss away
for the weekend, the deputy ordered it, and then left his bosses the options of
supporting it or appearing weak and appearing to make a concession by withdrawing it. For
that adventure, he was rewarded by becoming Sec of State in due time.
The pattern is not new. Doing it domestically is new. Doing it to remove a President
is new. Doing it to reverse a US election is new, though reversing foreign elections that
way by the same people was routine.
If we are to fix this, we need to face that it is a problem very deeply embedded. It
is not new, and does not have recent nor shallow roots.
"What goes unmentioned is that many of the dead are Eastern Ukrainians with deep
language and cultural connections to Russia, who acted upon secessionist impulses only
after the emergence of the new regime in Kiev."
This is true. Putin/Lavrov team gets a lot criticism for that in Russia. Maybe, of all
those Kalibrs going to Raqqa, Syria, just a few could make a detour to Lvov, Ukraine, for
demonstration purposes? While I greatly respect the diplomatic acumen of the Russian
leadership, i think support for pro-Russia East Ukrainians has been insufficient. More
could and should have been done. Donbass people were allowed to receive Russian passports
recently, so hopefully this will change things for the better, and more Russian support
will arrive, but we will see. West won't like a more pro-active Russian approach, but
since Russia-West relations won't improve in a foreseeable future, Russia can safely
discard Western opinion and agree to disagree on this particular matter.
According to Deng Xiaoping's maxim, we should "seek truth from facts," and after three
years Trump recognizes the fact that it is in U.S. national interest to avoid great power
conflict either with China or Russia. If we were to be honest and "seek truth from facts"
judging Putin with fairness by his action, we would see that Putin's intellect and
character have benefitted the international community at large in every regions across
the globe. Sadly, the American mandarin class is like Mao's Chinese Gang of Four who
insisted on continuing with outdated Cold War political ideology. Americans would never
vote for any chaos president, and Trump realizes that in time for 2020.
Russia has its own fair share of neo-naztis, so what?
Ukrainian neo-nazis (Azov etc.) get paided and armed by the Ukrainian state.
On Wednesday, New York Rep. Max Rose, who chairs the
counterterrorism subcommittee, submitted a letter to the State
Department, co-signed by 39 members of Congress . It urged the department
to designate Azov Battalion (a far-right paramilitary regiment in
Ukraine), National Action (a neo-Nazi group based in the U.K.), and
Nordic Resistance Movement (a neo-Nazi network from Scandinavia) as
terrorist organizations .
The reason they think Azov is neo-nasti organization is because the suspect in
Christchurch mosque got military
training in Ukraine.
I think this is typical illustration of the "Post hoc" fallacy.
There are no records of Azov perpetuating anti semitic or anti muslim actions in
Ukraine, so it is not clear if there is a relation.
Russia, on the other hand, openly peddling supremacy - Russian civilization, Russian
world, Russian character, Russian language - are the best and superior to anything
else.
Money quote: “Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts."
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils. ..."
"... Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen. ..."
"... The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive. ..."
"... Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally allied with Clinton camp. ..."
"... In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits. ..."
"... The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians. ..."
"... The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. ..."
"... If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War childhood out of my head long enough to laugh. ..."
A talk with Oleg Tsarev reveals the alleged identity of the "Trump/Ukraine Whistleblower"
Israel Shamir October
25, 2019 2,400 Words 6 Comments Reply
Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts.
The mysterious 'whistleblower' whose report had unleashed the impeachment is named in the
exclusive interview given to the Unz Review by a prominent Ukrainian politician, an
ex-Member of Parliament of four terms, a candidate for Ukraine's presidency, Oleg Tsarev.
Mr Tsarev, a tall, agile and graceful man, a good speaker and a prolific writer, had been a
leading and popular Ukrainian politician before the 2014 putsch; he stayed in the Ukraine after
President Yanukovych's flight; ran for the Presidency against Mr Poroshenko, and eventually had
to go to exile due to multiple threats to his life. During the failed attempt to secede, he was
elected the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia (South-Eastern Ukraine). I spoke to him in
Crimea, where he lives in the pleasant seaside town of Yalta. Tsarev still has many supporters
in the Ukraine, and is a leader of the opposition to the Kiev regime.
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US
proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer
of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine;
the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a
few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence
on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas, sufficient for
domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians
got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine
could provide all its households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like Libya did.
Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and very
little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high.
The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating; and huge
profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said
that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its
founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the
company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in
Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar
per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax
code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours
to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds
won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for
this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different
sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed
Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also
could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep his trap shut:
by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr
Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was
confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash
case.
What is Firtash Case?
The Democrats wanted to get another Ukrainian oligarch, Mr Firtash, to the US and make him
to confess that he illegally supported Trump's campaign for the sake of Russia. Firtash had
been arrested in Vienna, Austria; there he fought extradition to the US. His lawyers claimed it
is purely political case, and they used Mr Shokin's deposition to substantiate their claim. For
this reason, the evidence supplied by Shokin is not easily reversible, even if Shokin were
willing, and he is not. He also stated under oath that the Democrats pressurised him to help
and extradite Firtash to the US, though he had no standing in this purely American issue. It
seems that Mrs Clinton believes that Firtash's funds helped Trump to win elections, an
extremely unlikely thing [says Mr Tsarev].
Talking about Burisma and Biden; what is this billion dollars of aid that Biden could
give or withhold?
It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for "support of democracy". First billion
dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for
Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the "acting President". The Ukrainian
constitution does not know of such a position, and Turchinov, "the acting President" had no
right to sign neither a legal nor financial document. Thus, all the documents that were signed
by him, in fact, had no legal force. However, Biden countersigned the papers signed by
Turchynov and allocated money for Ukraine. And the money was stolen – by the Democrats
and their Ukrainian counterparts.
Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to
investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016;
one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the
money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment,
discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.
As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for
"Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers' money". Among the accused there are two
consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and
Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the
USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump said, now the US does not give away
money and does not impose democracy.
The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk
assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a
substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without
documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by
the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.
Sam Kislin was involved in this investigation. He is a good friend and associate of
Giuliani, Trump's lawyer and an ex-mayor of New York. Kislin is well known in Kiev, and I have
many friends who are Sam's friends [said Tsarev]. I learned of his progress, because some of my
friends were detained in the United States, or interrogated in Ukraine. They briefed me about
this. It appears that Burisma is just the tip of the scandal, the tip of the iceberg. If Trump
will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated, the whole headquarters of
the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to hold elections. I have no right
to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of the Democratic party are involved.
Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once
the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent
the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally
allied with Clinton camp.
And President Zelensky? Is he free from Clintonite Democrats' influence?
If he were, there would not be the scandal of Trump phone call. How the Democrats learned of
this call and its alleged content? The official version says there was a CIA man, a
whistle-blower, who reported to the Democrats. What the version does not clarify, where this
whistle-blower was located during the call. I tell you, he was located in Kiev, and he was
present at the conversation, at the Ukrainian President Zelensky's side. This man was (perhaps)
a CIA asset, but he also was a close associate of George Soros, and a Ukrainian high-ranking
official. His name is Mr Alexander Daniluk . He is also the man
the investigation of Sam Kislin and of the DoJ had led to, the Finance Minister of Ukraine at
the time, the man who was responsible for the embezzlement of three billion US taxpayer's best
dollars. The DoJ issued an order for his arrest. Naturally he is devoted to Biden personally,
and to the Dems in general. I would not trust his version of the phone call at all.
Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was
informed that there is an order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev. And soon afterwards, the
hell of the alleged leaked phone call broke out. Zelensky administration investigated and
concluded that the leak was done by Mr Alexander Daniluk, who is known for his close relations
with George Soros and with Mr Biden. Alexander Daniluk had been fired. (However, he did not
admit his guilt and said the leak was done by his sworn enemy, the head of president's
administration office, Mr Andrey Bogdan , who allegedly framed
Daniluk.)
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is Amos J. Hochstein , a protege of former
VP Joe Biden, who has served in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of
State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine. Together with an American citizen
Andrew Favorov
, the Deputy Director of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into
Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine
with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go via
Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while
the margin is collected by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from
the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price will be paid by the Ukrainians, while
profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the
Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of
Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian
titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq
war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with Audrius Butkevicius , the former
Minister of Defence (1996 to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet
Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now is a member of the notorious Institute for
Statecraft , a UK deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations,
subversion of the democratic process and promoting Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war.
In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed to the
Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of
his troops from Lithuania. Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In
1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000 USD from a senior executive of a
troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested
on receipt of the bribe, had been sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such
qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated
the feat in 2003 during the Rose Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers
killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who
called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars'
grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught
fire; allegedly thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by
fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind: the previous one, equally huge, torched
Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios investigated the fires, he
discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't
destroyed by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the
Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev
to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this enormous operation
was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the
Minister of Defence Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr
Biden. (They say Mr Matios was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep
State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and
politicians.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein
himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's family only makes me more certain that they will get
away with this heist like they've done with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
Who will hold then responsible? The country appears to have been entirely taken over by
crookish spooks and politicians.
The US is now confirmed as a cleptocracy.
Ukraine is corrupted by outsiders (those who are not Ukrainian/Russian). In past centuries
there was a simple but effective answer to foreigners corrupting their country. The Cossacks
would sharpen up their sabres. saddle up their horses and have a slaughter. It was effective
then and would be effective today. Get rid of those who are not Slavic.
"... The official GOP talking points are that the Impeachment trial is a Deep State partisan witch hunt, being conducted in private and the equivalent of a coup or an attempt to overturn the 2016 elections. This is just being done to create some image that those talking points are substantiated. ..."
"... The impeachment is an Intelligence Community (aka Deep State) operation condoned by the Dems. They have decided to widen the scope to include lots of crimes, rather than just the phone call/funding block issue. This ups the ante, as Trump could easily get out of that, but being continuously assaulted with new claims will be much more difficult. Thus, transforming his investigation into the completely QueenOfWarmongers rubbish known as RussiaGate into a criminal probe with supeona power and so forth creates a counter narrative which Trump can use to defend himself. ..."
"... As for handcuffs, my targets would be Bush, Cheney, Clapper and Brennan, and possibly Mueller too (see his 'management' of the Anthrax attacks). ..."
"... Brennan in cuffs will require his partners in crime at the Oval Office meeting of the principles in late 2016 to be led away in handcuffs also. The 2016 Oval Office meeting which launched the FISA court referral will necessarily implicate the POTUS. ..."
"... Tax evasion took down gangster Al Capone. Like Al Capone a lesser charge will have John Brennan viewing the world through iron bars. For the intelligence community to actively attempt to decide an election and then actively attempt the coup of a President is damn, damn, damn serious but it pales in comparison to the 9/11 false flag. John Brennan stood at the apex of the 9/11 treachery (interestingly, Robert Mueller was involved too, but his role appears limited to the cover up). It appears John Brennan will get away with 9/11. ..."
"... In other words the Mueller investigation literally was a conspiracy theory. Any mass media organization that discusses "conspiracy theories" but fails to point out this biggest one of them all is engaged in deliberate deceit. ..."
"... I suspect that John Bolton is in fact the mastermind behind this fake "whistleblower" stunt. it's the sort of action Bolton would do as the master bureaucrat, spread false rumors of what the call between Trump and Zelensky contained among his subordinates and Neocon fellow travellers to feed into the narrative of a corrupt deal with Zelensky to derail Trumps plans in Ukraine and Russia and feed the Democrats impeachment push. Trump declassifying the transcript of the conversation probably caught him by surprise and threw a wrench into his plans since Trump has refused to declassify documents in the past and the State Department probably would have argued that Trump not declassify the conversation. ..."
"... In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt. ..."
Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia
investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry,
according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it,
John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand
jury and to file criminal charges.
In contrast these formulations in Bezos' blog on the very same issue are confusing me.
The federal prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William P. Barr to examine the origins of
the FBI's probe of President Trump's 2016 campaign is conducting an investigation officials
consider criminal in nature, according to a person familiar with the matter.
...
The significance of officials deeming Durham's probe "criminal" is difficult to determine by
itself.
...
It was not immediately clear whether officials' consideration of his work as criminal
represented a shift in the seriousness of his investigation or whether a grand jury had been
convened.
Durham's work is considered as criminal? The investigation itself has committed a crime? The
attorney is a criminal?
One wonders if this choice of phrasing was intended to be ambiguous.
Anyway.
I for one will cheer when Durham puts handcuffs on John Brennan.
Posted by b on October 25, 2019 at 12:09 UTC | Permalink
The official GOP talking points are that the Impeachment trial is a Deep State partisan
witch hunt, being conducted in private and the equivalent of a coup or an attempt to overturn
the 2016 elections. This is just being done to create some image that those talking points
are substantiated.
In order to understand this, you need to start with impeachment, and then look at what is
behind that.
The impeachment is an Intelligence Community (aka Deep State) operation condoned by
the Dems. They have decided to widen the scope to include lots of crimes, rather than just
the phone call/funding block issue. This ups the ante, as Trump could easily get out of that,
but being continuously assaulted with new claims will be much more difficult. Thus,
transforming his investigation into the completely QueenOfWarmongers rubbish known as
RussiaGate into a criminal probe with supeona power and so forth creates a counter narrative
which Trump can use to defend himself.
This seems pretty obvious.
The more interesting thing is, why did Polosi take on the impeachment inquiry? Well, it
will burn Biden, which is probably good because he's lost it. And, it will create all this
anti-Trump sentiment. But, her job, via the DNC is to get a nominee who will keep the status
quo and defeat Trump. They are currently putting their apples in the Warren bucket. This is
acceptable to the powers behind the scenes (MIC/Oil/...) as she will do the least amount of
change.
But, Polosi and the core Dems bigger problems are Burnie and Gabbard. They represent
radical change and the powers that should not be will do whatever they can to prevent that.
And, the bigger problem there is that Bernie's strategy is to create a movement which will
continue to engage. From his 2016 campaign you get AOC and Omar who are also radical. Thus,
this is a threat which will need to be constantly fought. And, with the lack of engagement by
the younger generation with the standard media outlets, they are even harder to control.
Now that the cat is out of the bag about RussiaGate, I imagine that the powers that be are
pissed off with QueenOfWarmongers for her stupid claims about Gabbard and Stein being Russian
assets. Flogging a dead horse (does not make it run faster). This just further enrages those
who are for more radical change.
Meanwhile, the "gang of four" are learning, independently and from Bernie, how power works
in DC. This represents a further challenge.
As for handcuffs, my targets would be Bush, Cheney, Clapper and Brennan, and possibly
Mueller too (see his 'management' of the Anthrax attacks).
IMO this investigation of the Mueller investigation is one part revenge and the rest is
gathering the evidence against Trump in order to bury it ahead of Trumps reelection. The full
Mueller report nor the evidence to produce it have been released and with this new
investigation controlled by Trumps protector it never will be while Barr and Trump are still
in power.
The conservative ruling power elite are staging a coup in America in order to establish
permanent conservative minority control of the levers of power and they see this as their
last best hope of achieving that goal. Buckle up this is going to get ugly as the
conservatives are starting to panic.
Brennan in cuffs will require his partners in crime at the Oval Office meeting of the
principles in late 2016 to be led away in handcuffs also. The 2016 Oval Office meeting which
launched the FISA court referral will necessarily implicate the POTUS. However, I don't
see these events materializing because compared to the president Trump replaced, Trump has
been far less urbane, educated and civil. All we usually ask of presidents is to be cool and
sophisticated when ordering the drone murders of our fellow U.S. Citizens, case in point as
ordered by Barack Obama with the 8-year old Nasser al Awlaki and her 16-year old brother,
Abdulrahman.
Tax evasion took down gangster Al Capone. Like Al Capone a lesser charge will have John
Brennan viewing the world through iron bars. For the intelligence community to actively
attempt to decide an election and then actively attempt the coup of a President is damn,
damn, damn serious but it pales in comparison to the 9/11 false flag. John Brennan stood at
the apex of the 9/11 treachery (interestingly, Robert Mueller was involved too, but his role
appears limited to the cover up). It appears John Brennan will get away with 9/11.
But, like Al Capone, John Brennan will live out his life caged up with his own kind.
With any luck this may all lead back to Obama, he is a truly evil man who (literally) got
away with murder. Perhaps if he got dragged away in handcuffs with Trump, Brennan et al then
we'd finally get a true assessment of his time as president...
From the early days of Russiagate I expected that the truth would never come out. (This is
the US of A, after all) Democrats would continue to live in their media
shaped delusions. (I am a Green Party voter). What truth did come out would be shaped by the
media to keep the Democratic voters steadfast in their heartfelt delusions.
Reuters has an article linked from their front page that is similar in intent to the
Bezo-blog that b has pointed out. I tried to choose a couple of paragraphs from the Reuters
article so that you would get the intent of it, but it is the *whole* thing, so read it.
**While reading it** try and see the article from the viewpoint of a brainwashed Democrat.
The article was designed to feed confirmation bias.
Read the whole thing, please.
Here are two unsurprising paragraphs:
Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the Justice
Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that could benefit the Republican
president politically and undermine former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia
investigation.
Mueller's investigation found that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump,
and led to criminal convictions of several former campaign aides. But Mueller concluded
that he did not have enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia.
The short of it: They're now already acting like a bunch of cockroaches scrambling when
the light's turned on, all looking to pin the blame on someone else.
He'd also love to see leading media propagandists charged, something I wholeheartedly
agree with. (Though I'd string up all the propagandists for much worse crimes than
Russiagate, which like "impeachment" was never anything more than retarded political
theater.)
Only two options here folks: Either the Washington Bezos Post is a) staffed
by deliberate liars or it is b) staffed by morons who cannot construct a comprehensible
sentence.
Well, there is a third possibility: c) Both of the above.
The US is now a country that has a growing cabal of current and past leadership that are
criminally complicit in deceiving the American public as is detailed in the Joe Rogan
Experience #1368 - Edward Snowden video that is almost 3 hours long....see Petri comment # 67
in Open Thread for link.....this is not Snowden the glitz movie but Snowden the very
intelligent and humanistically patriotic person.
The recent phase of deception, according to Snowden has its roots in the 3 letter spy
agencies having overstepped constitutional bounds after 9/11. While the deception about
monitoring of Americans is criminal, its long term underlying goal is, and has been, to cover
up the take over of America by the international cult behind private finance led empire.
In case all missed the slow frog boiling transition, what use to be a country that was
established to be by and for the people (E Pluribus Unum) has now been turned into a tool of
unilateral financial control of the world that is faltering because China/Russia, et al are
not going along with the program.
The ongoing deception house of cards is collapsing as Might-Makes-Right can no longer hold
it together. The demise of the private finance/property/inheritance centered social contract
of the West is not a straight forward collapse as we are seeing, but collapsing it is.
How so very interesting to watch unfold.....as Snowden would encourage you, each of us has
our opportunity to play our part in evolving our society.....play your part without fear like
Snowden encourages and has provided such moving example of.
I find it impossible to get my hopes up that justice will ever be served to anyone in a
position of authority or malign influence in this country because they're all part of the
same Kabuki theater designed to keep us divided, confused, and unable to coalesce around a
strategy to confront them.
These investigations are always the stalling tactic they use to keep one side hoping for
justice while making the opposing side feel that it's the victim of a witch hunt, and
invariable both sides will be disappointed in the results while the power structure will
remain intact.
The only time anything resembling "justice" is served is when some low-level persons with
enough name recognition to make headlines, i.e. Martha Steward or these celebrity parents who
paid to get their kids into college, are sacrificed in order to maintain the illusion of a
functioning justice system. In reality the justice system we have is nothing more than
another line in the phalanx of defense the ruling elites (see: globalists, capitalists,
zionists) have built to protect their corrupt position of power.
Nobody who lies us into wars, orchestrates terrorist attacks (real or synthetic) against
us, or smuggles heroin from Afghanistan to a city near you as part of a domestic
destabilization campaign will ever get into trouble until we bring that trouble directly to
them outside of official channels.
To your list of indictments of Mueller you might add his role in the run up to 9/11 and in
its (non)investigation; the Whitey Bulger travesty in Boston; Uranium One. I'm sure there's
more. Precisely contrary to the Paladin of integrity portrait of Mueller, the Swamp would
have so much on this guy as to make him a safe pair of hands with the Russiagate IO. Who else
(unless senile) would want that turkey on their record?
Fuzzball @ 6--
And to your list of other perps, we might consider adding:
Cheryl Mills, Clinton counsel
Susan Rice
Samantha Power
Comey the canary
Clinton herself
Glenn Simpson
and Mr. No-Scandal himself, Hoops and change $$ cha-ching.
That WashPost article, born to confuse, is bizarre. Good catch.
As for Durham, is it known here that he has a track record of covering up for CIA
misdeeds: viz. , briefly, torture and destruction of evidence of torture? A pretty odd
choice for Trump to have made to uncover the plot against him.
"...Mueller ... did not have enough evidence to establish a criminal
conspiracy..."
In other words the Mueller investigation literally was a conspiracy theory. Any mass
media organization that discusses "conspiracy theories" but fails to point out this
biggest one of them all is engaged in deliberate deceit.
In a seismic legal filing, lawyers for Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's former national
security adviser Michael Flynn, have produced evidence they allege points to a "plot to set
up an innocent man and create a crime" – conduct "so shocking to the conscience and
so inimical to our system" they argue the case against him must be dismissed.
In the document, Flynn's lead legal representative Sydney Powell contends the very
foundation of his prosecution, a 24th January 2017 FBI interview in which the Bureau
alleges he lied about speaking with Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak in December
2016.[.]
[.]
"I made your edits" to Michael Flynn's 302 -- his FBI report from the interview Mueller
used to convict him
This is a long inteview with Angelo Codevilla, a conservative writer, academic, and card
carrying member of the Borg. I first ran into him around the time Russia went in to save
Assad, in Asia Times. Some interesting views on the Borg, Russiagate, Snowden, Syria,
Kissinger, etc.
Once upon a time if a person having a superior position in government or business got caught
in an indisgression that impugned his/her honor, the individual would pull their pistol from
their desk drawer and solve the problem as that was deemed the right & proper course of
action -- the honorable thing to do to redeem one's self.
Thus once discovered after his first incident, for example, Bill Clinton would have spared
us all much crap by ending his days while Governor of Arkansas; and before him, Nixon; and
before him, Ike; and before him, Truman; Boeing's CEO; etc.
Alas, there's no sense of honor held by those seeking high office or corporate leadership.
Perhaps the only such person to ever have publicly expressed any contrition for his position
was Andrew Carnegie in his Gospel of Wealth .
But Philanthropy cannot ever atone for violation of the public trust. Even gangsters have
a Code of Honor, but US politicians and all too many bureaucrats--nah: their code is anything
goes in the pursuit of power. IMO, it's such Moral Bankruptcy that gnaws at most of us
barflies regardless of our politics. The Ds are just as guilty as the Rs but none ever go to
jail or get impeached, although occasionally one resigns. On more than one occasion, I've
thought it best just to liquidate the entire governing structure, instruments and denizens of
the federal government and begin again from scratch.
It seems fair to observe that the transition from the Depression to the final depravity of
WW2 must have collectively damaged/shifted the nation's moral center, or is that merely
wishful thinking in order to deal with the reality that at bottom the USA is a massively
immoral construct that must constantly lie to itself lest it wake up to its depravity. How
would kids today even sense that? Easy, through the utterly depraved levels of violence
present within things deemed games that teach how to dehumanize and kill other humans at a
very young age. So, it's actually very simple: A sick, depraved society produces a sick,
depraved government and businesses. One wonders what sort of entity is In God We Trust.
A number of weeks ago I was sent an email by one of my state Senators, Jeff Merkley. I shared
that email with fellow barflys as well as my response. Just today I received a "response" to
my rant about our failing country and below is that email which I think is indicative of how
lost America has become.....this is from what many would consider to be one of the
"better/progressive/representative of the people" Senators in the US....sigh
"
Dear James,
Thank you for contacting me to share your views about President Trump and the impeachment
inquiry opened in the House of Representatives. I appreciate hearing from you on this serious
issue.
I have heard from Oregonians in large numbers expressing their concerns about statements
made and actions taken by President Trump. I have also heard from some Oregonians who oppose
the impeachment inquiry. I would much prefer that the Senate take up the many House-passed
bills to address the real needs of working Oregonians, but I also believe we have a sworn
constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law and ensure that federal office-holders are
using their powers for the public interest, not their own.
Testimony and accounts from a number of people directly involved in U.S. foreign policy
lay out extensive efforts by President Trump and his aides to pressure the Ukrainian
government to investigate President Trump's political opponents and, it appears, to condition
U.S. aid on whether Ukraine succumbed to that pressure. The president also publicly called on
the governments of both Ukraine and China to investigate his political opponents during a
press conference on the White House lawn.
These actions are deeply concerning. The goal of U.S. foreign policy should always be to
protect American interests and American security. We cannot sacrifice those core objectives
for any individual's political or personal gain. The Founders were worried about exactly this
scenario, of a president corrupting U.S. foreign policy to serve himself, rather than the
American public, and explicitly discussed it during the Constitutional Convention as a prime
rationale for impeachment.
I also believe that the detailed case laid out by the Special Counsel of obstruction of
justice by the President warrants impeachment. Over 1,000 former federal prosecutors of both
parties have written to Congress to say that any other individual would be indicted on
multiple felony counts based on the evidence compiled by the Special Counsel.
I believe in those words carved above the Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law." If the
Department of Justice will not indict a sitting president then impeachment is the only avenue
available to ensure that nobody, not even the president, is above the law.
Impeachment should never be taken lightly, and never be used as a tool of partisan
politics. Disliking a president or their policy choices is not grounds for impeachment, but a
president corrupting his office and subverting the rule of law is. If the House does take the
solemn step of impeaching the President, I will work to ensure that there is a fair trial in
the Senate that presents the American people with a complete picture of the evidence and the
appropriate context to understand its significance.
I will continue to fight for an America where every individual – no matter how
powerful – is held accountable to the law. America's founders created the impeachment
process precisely for that reason.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and your engagement in our democracy.
I hope you continue to contact me about issues that matter to you.
All my best,
Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator
"
So the kabuki hiding the cult of global private finance empire continues
"Equal Justice Under Law" Why wasn't that applied to Obama and Clinton since Merkley was
Senator then? What about Pelosi for not doing her duty to impeach George W Bush? And as we
all know, the list could go on and on. As I wrote above @24, Immorality rules the roost.
There're an average of 135 suicides daily within the USA, but none of them are politicos.
IMO, they need to do their part too and not leave it up to veterans.
Senator Merkley's letter, although sounding nice and righteous, fails to address the
selectivity in "Equal justice under law" that plagues this judicial system, hence rendering
it useless. If there was equality in justice, they should go back to the crimes of Reagan,
the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama before they get to Trump. By the way, Trump is guilty of
many crimes and I'm not discounting them, worst of all posing as a president.
The exhibit below is just a sample of how the deep state is working feverishly to get
their agenda back on tack. John Bolton who is the embodiment of the rot and filth that that
exist in American politics is now throwing more fuel into this fire.
Goes to show that there is no line between the democrats and republicans. These animals
are all woven from the same cloth.
Brennan knows where all the bodys are buried, much as I'd like to see him behind bars,
Its about as likely as me keeping Unicorns in my back paddock.
Sorry, the game is delay, delay and delay.
Its a threat and warning from Trump, but a bluff, because it simply will not happen.
@Bemildred #23
Second the reference.
And I add this snippet: bold is David Samuels, not bold is Angelo Codevilla
There was one quote, I forget who it came from, but it came out of an interaction of one
of the reasonably high-up war planners in the Defense Department and a journalist for, I
think it was, The Atlantic. And the quote was that power creates its own reality. So it
doesn't matter what we say, because even if it's not true now, by the time we're finished
we will make it true. And therefore there is no real difference between statements that are
true or false, as long as we make them.
Do you have the sense that a similar attempt to manufacture reality was at play in
what at this point are the still-unknown interactions between the CIA, the FBI, and the
Obama White House with regard to the surveillance of Donald Trump's associates, and the
attempt to suggest some vast Putin-Trump conspiracy to game American elections, and
whatnot?
I don't think that it went that far. Or I should say, I don't think the people involved
thought about it that deeply.
I would agree.
I think what you had was a small pooling of resources to tweak the news cycle with
regard to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, which then turned into
something very major.
After the election.
After the election. It was, like Watergate, a minor attempt to gain marginal advantage.
Which then, unintended by the people involved at the time, became something very big, which
escaped everyone's control.
I believe that there are a whole bunch of people in Washington right now who are quaking
in their boots because the House Intelligence Committee has shaken loose some of the
documents involved. Because in the long run there are no secrets in Washington. And one can
then wonder about the quality of the people who imagined that the things they did could
remain secret.
It really was a marvel. The idea was that if we all say it together long enough and we
shout it loud so nothing else can be heard, then it will become the effective truth,
Machiavelli's verita effettuale. But I mean, there is a limit to this. I have some close
personal friends who are more on the left, and I said to them: OK. Where's the evidence?
Who did what when to whom? Where are the quids and where are the quos? What's going on
here? And all they could say is, "Well, the investigation is going on."
What is not clear is just how much of the reality will come into the public's
consciousness.
Whose fault is this?
The fault here is not of Democrats on the left. The fault here is of Donald Trump and
his friends who have refused to enforce the most basic laws here. The most obvious one is
Section 798, (18 U.S. Code), the simple comment statute. Now anybody in the intelligence
business knows that this is the live wire of security law. It is a strict liability
statute. It states that any revelation, regardless of circumstance or intent, any
revelation period, of anything having to do with U.S. communications intelligence is
punishable by the 10 and 10. Ten years in the slammer, and $10,000 fine. Per count.
Now the folks who went to The Washington Post and The New York Times in November and
December of 2016 and peddled this story of the intelligence community's conclusion that
Trump and the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, these people ipso facto violated
§798.
Considering these matters are highly classified, and that the number of the people
involved is necessarily very small, identifying them is child's play. But no effort to do
that has been made.
@ Posted by: Michael Droy | Oct 25 2019 18:08 utc | 28
I doubt it (the second part) -- are you familiar with the depth of delusion of his
supporters? It's all about perception; they never noticed the underlying reality of his
tenure, so why would they start? They'll be more than happy to attribute it all to Agent
Orange or whoever becomes their subsequent bête noire/obsessive hate figure.
>Why not the whole shebang?! They all have blood on their hands.
> Posted by: Barovsky | Oct 25 2019 13:45 utc | 11
Because there would be no one left to give orders to the peons! How would we know what to do
without self-important Dear Leaders incorrectly telling us how to do our jobs, like at
Boeing?
Yes they all have blood on their hands. The motto "We must all hang together or we shall
surely all hang separately" comes to mind, except that there is no honor among these thieves.
Instead the DC Dunces have formed a circular firing squad, and everyone is waiting to see who
will shoot first.
Here's a report saying the slogan to be used in protests this weekend against Trump is
"Nobody is Above the Law." Unfortunately, that's one of the biggest of all BigLies. If that
were true, then we wouldn't be having this Impeachment free-for-all at all because Trump and
all his predecessors would already be in jail along with most of Congress, numerous
bureaucrats and businesspeople. It's a crying shame I'm barred from commenting at the website
I cited, but that's because I called out the crimes of Obama and Clinton, et al--talk about
double standards and total lack of credibility. If I were to attend one of the protests, I'd
carry a placard calling out the BigLie. If any barflies do, I hope they'll carry a similar
placard as the wholesale lack of applying the law is at the root of our collective corruption
problem.
The Jeff Bozo Propaganda Rag article was written by one Matt Zapotosky who covers Justice
Dept issues for the newspaper's national security team. He has a Bachelor of Journalism
degree from Ohio University.
Does this background seem to MoA barflies to be a bit odd? Shouldn't writers specialising
in Justice Dept issues have some understanding of the legal system and its operations, to the
extent of having law degrees themselves? Does the national security team at WaPo not smell as
if it's stacked to the rafters with intel agents telling people what to write?
One wonders also what Journalism students are taught at universities in Western countries
these days.
How is it that Trump demonstrators, whether for him or against him, are unable to notice the
Empire's world-wide killing machine that never sleeps? Huge crowds around the world shouted
"Hands Off Iraq" before the 2003 invasion. What happened to them? Did they all get too old
and sick to do anything anymore?
I used to know a journalism professor. He said most of his students were preparing for a
corporate career in public relations. Not many were interested in learning how to reveal the
crimes of the empire.
It was similar with a labor law class I audited a long time ago. I was the only
labor-oriented student. The rest were headed for "human resources management" or to be
corporate anti-labor lawyers.
There aren't enough handcuffs for all of these treasonous, criminal scum going back a hundred
years. May I suggest hemp rope? It's reusable and environmentally friendly.
thanks b... it is hard to see this getting traction if the msm is unwilling to address the
news in an unbiased manner, or leaves out critical information on what is taking place inside
the political system of the usa and the role that the cia-fbi has played in creating the
mueller investigation... thus the question of just who is Joseph Mifsud, remains off the
radar of most, in spite of how important this question about who he is in all of this...
disobedient media was asking this same question back in an article from april 4 2018 -
All Russiagate Roads Lead To London As Evidence Emerges Of Joseph Mifsud's Links To UK
Intelligence
i just can't see the msm cooperating here and that means trumps pushback on all this is
going to be hard to get traction unless something changes.. it will be framed as 'trump
trying to evade the impeachment process on him'...
so just where is joseph mifsud and what role has he played in all this? the dem crowd
claim he is russian intel! who is he and what agencies was he connected to? he played George
Papadopoulos
like a fiddle.. what agency was he working for? we need to know the answer to this to get
some traction here..
It is all following the predictions of the mysterious Q-anon, who has not been heard from
since the message board 8 Chan was taken off-line in the wake of mass shootings and the MSM
claiming right-wing white supremacists etc used 8 Chan for manifestos of their sick views
(despite using FaceBook, Twitter, general internet etc as well).
There were - in the 3570 'Q drops' (posts) from 29 Oct 2017 to 2 Aug 2019 - many
indications that Q was a group of US military intelligence agents who had close access to the
Trump administration and were using 8 Chan as a back channel communication to the public to
circumvent the MSM. At least that is the narrative and it is worth doing your own research to
see what you think.
Q predicted a week or so before it happened that mass shootings would be used for that
purpose to silence this back channel - but that the 'plan' would still go ahead - involving
Barr, Durham and Horowitz to take down the 'deep state', starting by exposing and prosecuting
the 'Russiagate' fake conspiracy as the planned coup of the DNC-Clinton
campaign-FBI-CIA-elements within UK&Australia-CNN-MSNBC-NYT-WaPo etc.
That 'plan' seems to be now unfolding - right according to plan.
@16 psychohistorian
The eternal powers available inside a constant state of emergency. Bush enabled Obama enabled
Trump. Especially via the post 9-11 editions of the sure-to-be-passed NDAA, signed into the
next year, l sometimes on the eves of midnight before the turn of the new year.
Have listened to half the Rogan-Snowden podcast so far. It's the stuff we all know is
happening, but the fine detail of how we got here are just so compelling.
If Google knows what you had for breakfast then 'In Don We Trust'
re ...One wonders what sort of entity is In God We Trust.
There was an explanation that fit/s the observed scene quite closely and even yields/ed
some prescient results. When I 1st heard it, my pause-button locked:
This is smoke and mirrors to take the heat off Trump after Juliani's "drug deal" didn't
deliver. They have tried this before with Rosenstein and couldn't even get an indictment out
of the grand jury. A judge just ordered the elease of the Muller evidence that Barr has been
deperatly trying to hide. If it shows that Barr was hiding it to protect the Trump clan the
gig is up on this whole tin foil hat cult Briebart and Fox have been manufacturing.
@karlof1 (26) If Pelosi had tried to impeach GW Bush, presumably for starting a war against
Iraq on false pretenses, the process would have severely damaged members of the Democratic
caucus, all but one of whom were complicit in approving that war. They did not formally
authorize or declare war, but they most definitely supported it. It's the same with
Russiagate and involves some of the same characters. The last thing they want is to have
their own complicity in a deep state/Clinton plot exposed.
Johnson had mentioned this being in the works some time ago. Looks like a section of the
swamp will be drained in a ig way - perhaps leaving Trumping a very powerful position for his
next term... which may not be a good thing.
Looks like Trump's opponents will be trying to use the media against him and the
investigation.
Although they have the media onside, if the investigation is above board then the Trump
faction will have the military. It was a fairly major conspiracy to prent Trump gaining
office and then trying to remove him from office that also involved foreign powers. If it
comes under subversion or something like that,then I take it the military may be able to act
to enforce the investigation findings.
Will be interesting.
Ukrainegate involves much more egregious crimes than Russiagate.
How exactly have we come to this? It is now an "abuse of power"
to investigate corruption. There is nothing suspicious whatsoever
about the timing of Trump's request to Zelensky. He had to wait till
a more favorable administration came to power in Ukraine to make the
request and Biden had already announced his candidacy by then. Poroshenko
has been accused of accepting a 100 million dollar bribe to terminate the
investigation of Burisma and Hunter Biden. What is Burisma anyway? Has
it ever produced a single cu. ft. of gas or a single barrel of oil? Or
was it a front for money laundering and all the rest of the stories about it
are a crock of shit? Where does it get all the cash to throw at sleazy
politicians and their creepy relatives? The federal government is a vast
criminal conspiracy desperately trying to cover ut its crimes. Ukraine
is a monumental crime scene. The entire country should be cordoned off with
police tape. Under the Obama administration, a Walpurgisnacht of demonically
possessed democrats and some republicans,descended upon Ukraine in a satanic
orgy of rape, looting, pillage and corruption.
"At some point the lawyers for the media companies will wake up and realize that spreading
lies on behalf of people facing criminal charges could expose them to obstruction charges as
well."
Quote is from linked article at
@Posted by: james | Oct 25 2019 20:52 utc | 46
Thank you, that sounds valid to me. Links would be helpful. I usually have limited
connections to those sources as I am not a fan. I do like the intrepid musings of amazing
polly when she is outing the maxwell/epstein team and their captured media.
Thanks for your reply! Wasn't that a George Carlin quip or perhaps from Cache-22
?
Rob @47--
Thanks for your reply! As you'll know if you've read enough of my writings here, I hold
both Ds & Rs in contempt and judge them unfit to govern as most are guilty of one or more
crimes, and at the very least of subverting the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
On the current Syria thread, I wrote why that's so
here .
evilempire @50--
"The federal government is a vast criminal conspiracy desperately trying to cover ut[sic]
its crimes."
That's an excellent summation of its behavior since 1945. I'd go back further in time, but
I haven't found enough evidence to prove a bi-partisan criminal conspiracy prior to then,
although the collusion between FDR and Wendell Willkie in 1940 merits further
investigation.
Agree "it is pretty crazy". What's more crazy is if you read through the sometimes riddle
like nature of 'Q' - it is all predicted in detail: www.qmap.pub
Two sides of the Deep State at civil war - nationalist-industrial/military/DIA (with Fox
News and some alt-media) versus globalist-financial-industrial/CIA/FBI (with most MSM).
ia @ 17 said; "The only time anything resembling "justice" is served is when some low-level
persons with enough name recognition to make headlines, i.e. Martha Steward or these
celebrity parents who paid to get their kids into college, are sacrificed in order to
maintain the illusion of a functioning justice system. In reality the justice system we have
is nothing more than another line in the phalanx of defense the ruling elites (see:
globalists, capitalists, zionists) have built to protect their corrupt position of power."
While we here on B's set are following his He done it, no she did it, sure enough they did it
script. the drivers behind the the political actors are the corporate sponsors. How about
lets discussing them?
I want to know more about Burisma Holdings in the Ukraine,
who are the oil companies in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Gaze, and Lebanon Egypt etc. ?
It is interesting to study drug trafficking in Afghanistan.
The politicians are corporate driven yet no one is working that angle. Politicians are
immune, but private corporate persons are not. Lets look at wall street how do they play in
this..
And so Moon of Alabama finally you have uncovered the trolls. Finally you have exposed Jack
and Donkey. It took a long while. All that time the doubts were sown but we were never taken
in. I would speculate that they sent money... B. has to survive.
And so Moon of Alabama finally you have uncovered the trolls. Finally you have exposed Jack
and Donkey..." Lochearn@59
Any references? I do hope that you are right. Last week I described them as the Mutt 'n' Jeff
of trolling on this site.
@48/49 peter au... interesting speculation.. will wait and see what comes of all this..
@ 60 ben... would you say the same of mueller who was head of the fbi at the time of 9-11?
what does he know and when did he know it? lots of hidden bodies in both these peoples
pasts... maybe one's actions can even out the others here?
to Rob #47 - and you all. I believe that Pelosi's husband works high up in the MIC. Just as
Teresa May's hubby did. The May family picked up a little extra coin on the bombing of Syria
re the "poisoned spies." Just so, Feinstein's hubby is a RE dealer/developer in SanFran. When
the US Post Office got knee capped who do you suppose bought up the prime lovely
old Post office? It's all pretty sick - and has been going on for decades. Term limits and
public campaign financing is the
only solution. Never happen, but "never say never."
"I have determined that Ukraine has made progress in providing adequate and effective
protection of intellectual property rights. Accordingly, it is appropriate to terminate the
suspension of the duty-free treatment," Trump said in a proclamation on Friday."
I suspect that John Bolton is in fact the mastermind behind this fake "whistleblower"
stunt. it's the sort of action Bolton would do as the master bureaucrat, spread false rumors
of what the call between Trump and Zelensky contained among his subordinates and Neocon
fellow travellers to feed into the narrative of a corrupt deal with Zelensky to derail Trumps
plans in Ukraine and Russia and feed the Democrats impeachment push. Trump declassifying the
transcript of the conversation probably caught him by surprise and threw a wrench into his
plans since Trump has refused to declassify documents in the past and the State Department
probably would have argued that Trump not declassify the conversation.
"The US is now a country that has a growing cabal of current and past leadership that are
criminally complicit in deceiving the American public"
Obama legalized deceiving the American public in his 2012 NDAA, when "Constitutional Law
Professor" Obama repealed the Smith-Mundt Act, the propaganda ban that had been in effect
since around 1948. He literally legalized lying to us. Bet you never heard of it. Reporter
Michael Hastings blew the whistle on this and we all know what happened to him. https://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5
And this all will be heard and judged by Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has asked Flynn several
times to consider retracting his guilty plea because the judge smelled a rat:
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
unleashed his fury before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He
fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've never seen anything approaching
the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case."
It was the culmination of a disastrous prosecution: the public corruption case against
former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Stevens was convicted in October 2008 of violating federal ethics laws by failing to
report thousands of dollars in gifts he received from friends. But a team of prosecutors
from the U.S. Department of Justice is accused of failing to hand over key exculpatory
evidence and knowingly presenting false evidence to the jury.
The Stevens case is a cautionary tale. It reminds lawyers and nonlawyers alike of the
power and failures of our legal system and those who have sworn to uphold the rule of law.
At the center of the story are real people: an old and powerful politician, a crack defense
team, determined prosecutors, and their supervisors.
"This is a fascinating case study for all lawyers," says criminal defense lawyer Stanley
M. Brand, a partner at Brand Law Group, P.C. "In these high-stakes cases, both sides can
get pretty aggressive and push the envelope. It's great to be aggressive -- it's great to
push, but this case reminds people that they have to observe the limits and the rules."
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to
turn over evidence. Then, after the jury convicted Stevens, the Justice Department
discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial
misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced
that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of
the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too
numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed
Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate
whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
Starting w/evilempires comment, which is Wow. Then Miss Lacy, maybe goldherder too but not
sure, to Kadath and then Willow and pogohere I'm not sure I'm at b's site. Great comments.
But certainly not the norm. Things that makes one go hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm...welcome, btw.
"This article seems to contradict many of the points in the link you posted."
No doubt, and it's from 2014. I've read half-a-dozen versions of Biden in Ukraine, all of
them different. That one is all one guy talking, so not much as evidence of anything. But
interesting. Another one had Kolomoisky as the master hand behind the Burisma deception, and
the nominal boss as cutout for him. The guy I posted doesn't mention that. They all seem to
agree it's about gas though. I notice that 2014 piece you posted says Kerry was involved too,
but he would be being SoS.
It stinks any way you slice it. The main thing I take from it at the moment is the big
explosion it caused when Trump went after it is indicative of it's political importance. A
weapon in the war in DC. Poor Zelenski, he is caught in the middle. A comedian.
Did you have a point of view about it, or just sussing out mine?
Fellow barflies, please stop disrespecting other well-behaved patrons whose opinions you find
unappealing.
If you don't like certain commenters' opinions, check the author before reading each
comment.
Some here previously complained about JR being "one note". Well, arguably, we can
characterize psycho and circe similarly. But, they each speak up to remind us of their fairly
unique (at least one this board) perceptions and how new events relate to their mental model
of how things work. I find each of their viewpoints interesting and plausible, as well as
yours -- except when you're making unjustified negative personal remarks.
My opinion right now is that the article you linked may be major
disinformation. Zlochevsky wasn't even the owner of Burisma in 2012.
The article at nakedcapitalism and even b have reported that the owners
were Kolomoiski and perhaps Pinchuk.
evilempire @77: Yes, Naked Capitalism is pretty scrupulous. I tend to think it's Kolomoiski
too, thanks for sharing you view and the link. I was wondering what people here would think
about it.
"... As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a scoundrel and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened before in history. ..."
It was interesting to watch the Cable News divas go incandescent under the glare of their
own gaslight late yesterday
when they received the unpleasant news that the Barr & Durham
"review" of RussiaGate had been officially
upgraded to a "criminal investigation."
Rachel Maddow's trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine " what
the
thing
is that Durham might be looking into."
Yes, that's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery,
inside an enigma, all right with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it. Welcome to the Wile E. Coyote
Lookalike Club, Rache. You'll have a lot of competition when the Sunday morning news-chat shows rev
up.
Minutes later, the answer dawned on her:
"It [
the thing
] follows the wildest conspiracy theories from Fox News!"
You'd think that someone who invested two-plus years of her life in the Mueller report, which blew
up in her pouty-face last spring, might have felt a twinge of journalistic curiosity as to the
sum-and-substance of the thing. But no, she just hauled on-screen RussiaGate intriguer David Laufman,
a former DOJ lawyer who ran the agency's CounterIntel and Export Control desk during the RussiaGate
years, and also helped oversee the botched Hillary Clinton private email server probe.
"They have this theory," Rachel said, "that maybe Russia didn't interfere in the election ."
"It's preposterous," said Laufman, all lawyered up and ready to draw a number and take a seat
for his own grand jury testimony.
Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal
investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room just
before air-time.
Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Misfud was,
and struggled to even pronounce his name: " Mifsood? Misfood ? You mean the Italian professor?"
No Jeff, the guy employed by several "friendly" foreign intelligence agencies, and the CIA,
to sandbag Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, and failed. I guess when you're at the beating
heart of TV news, you don't have to actually follow any of the stories reported outside your locked
ward, and maybe entertain a few angles outside your
purview
, i.e. your range of thought and
experience.
Next Andy hauled onscreen former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (now a
paid CNN "contributor") to finesse a distinction between the "overall investigation of the Russian
interference" or "the counterintelligence investigation that was launched by the FBI."
Consider that Mr. Clapper was right in the middle between the CIA and the FBI. Since he is known to be
a friend of Mr. Comey's and a not-friend of Mr. Brennan's one can easily see which way Mr. Clapper is
tilting. One can also see the circular firing squad that this is a setup for. And, of course, Mr.
Clapper himself will be a subject in Mr. Durham's criminal case proceedings. I predict October will be
the last month that Mr. Clapper draws a CNN paycheck -- as he hunkers down with his attorneys awaiting
the subpoena with his name on it.
The
New
York Times story
on this turn of events Friday morning is a lame attempt to rescue former FBI
Director Jim Comey by pinning the blame for RussiaGate on the CIA, shoving CIA John Brennan under the
bus.
The Times report says: "Mr. Durham has also asked whether C.I.A. officials might have
somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation." There's the next narrative for you.
Expect to hear this incessantly well into 2020.
I wonder if there is any way to hold the errand boys-and-girls in the news media accountable for
their roles as handmaidens in what will be eventually known as a seditious coup to overthrow a
president.
We do enjoy freedom of the press in this land, but I can see how these birds merit
charges as unindicted co-conspirators in the affair.
One wonders if the various boards of
directors of the newspaper and cable news outfits might seek to salvage their self-respect by firing
the executives who allowed it happen. If anything might be salutary in the outcome of this hot mess,
it would be a return to respectability of the news media.
As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own
historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a
scoundrel
and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a
criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened
before in history. Two centuries before Joe McCarthy, the French national assembly suddenly turned on
the Jacobins Robespierre and St. Just after their orgy of beheading 17,000 enemies. The two were
quickly dispatched themselves to the awe of their beloved guillotine and the Jacobin faction was not
heard of again -- until recently in America, where it first infected the Universities and then sickened
the polity at large almost unto death
According to Tracey, Ukrainegate flows out of Russiagate
Notable quotes:
"... MT makes his best point, IS Trump's deal with Mexico corrupt too? It helps his reelection, so is everything he does to help his re-election corrupt? If you're in the camp orange-man bad than anything he does is corruption. This IS politics, it turns out Trump is really good at it and the IA's don't like it. ..."
"... Trump believes he's investigating corruption. Biden was an afterthought based on Biden's video showing he literally demanded action in return for a billion dollar loan. ..."
"... Trump is head of DOJ. Remember Obama used the FBI, CIA and State Dept against Trump after Trump was the nominee. The Dem double standard is frightening. (and yes, I'm a Dem - but I'm honest) ..."
"... How does giving Ukraine lethal weapons to murder eastern Ukrainians make America safer??? ..."
"... Ukraine is a pawn in a cynical geopolitical game. ..."
"... The US uses Ukraine to target and destabilize Russia. It's evil and insane. And the American people are completely ignorant of how their government's reckless policies endanger world stability. US and NATO warmongers have amassed more troops on Russia's border than Nazi Germany did before the WW2 invasion. ..."
"... Who's the aggressor? Who's trying to start WW3? One mistake, one mishap and BAM...WW3.... Wake the F* #K Up!!!!! ..."
Hunter Biden slept with his brothers widow, got caught with a crack pipe, multiple drivers
licenses and a badge in his car, was thrown out of the military for drugs. You can certainly
understand why a Ukranian Energy company jumped at the chance make him a director.
it is almost like the democrats have decided
to impeach trump from day 1 and are trying to see what sticks ti impeach him- 1) Russia - no
didnt work 2) stormy daniels- no didnt work 3) Michael Cohen- no dint work 4) Ukraine- ??
Thanks to dem establishment Trump is going to win 2020 again. Only Tulsi or Bernie can defeat
Trump and they deface them..Stupid party
38:00MT makes his best point,
IS Trump's deal with Mexico corrupt too? It helps his reelection, so is everything he does to
help his re-election corrupt? If you're in the camp orange-man bad than anything he does is
corruption. This IS politics, it turns out Trump is really good at it and the IA's don't like
it.
I just think the phone call was clear. Trump believes he's investigating corruption.
Biden was an afterthought based on Biden's video showing he literally demanded action in
return for a billion dollar loan.
Trump is head of DOJ. Remember Obama used the FBI, CIA and State Dept against Trump
after Trump was the nominee. The Dem double standard is frightening. (and yes, I'm a Dem -
but I'm honest)
How does giving Ukraine lethal weapons to
murder eastern Ukrainians make America safer??? How does the US/NATO war machine
provoking Russia on its border make America safer?
Hint...It doesn't! Ukraine is a pawn in a cynical geopolitical game.
The US uses
Ukraine to target and destabilize Russia. It's evil and insane. And the American people are
completely ignorant of how their government's reckless policies endanger world stability. US
and NATO warmongers have amassed more troops on Russia's border than Nazi Germany did before
the WW2 invasion.
Who's the aggressor? Who's trying to start WW3? One mistake, one mishap and
BAM...WW3.... Wake the F* #K Up!!!!!
I support you, Michael Tracey! I know Cenk fired you for opposing Russiagate and nearly
destroyed your career -- don't give up, you have real anti establishment cred now, there will
always be an audience!
The effort to find (or create) impeachable offense against President Donald Trump has
now moved from the subjects of the Mueller investigation -- collusion with Russia and obstruction
of justice -- to alleged recent political "sins": "quid pro quo" with Ukraine and obstruction of
Congress.
The goal of the impeach-at-any-cost cadre has always been the same: impeach and remove
Trump, regardless of whether or not he did anything warranting removal.
The means -- the
alleged impeachable offenses -- have changed, as earlier ones have proved meritless. The search for
the perfect impeachable offense against Trump is reminiscent of overzealous prosecutors who target
the defendant first and then search for the crime with which to charge him.
Or to
paraphrase the former head of the Soviet secret police to Stalin: show me the man and I will find
you the crime.
Although this is not Stalin's Soviet Union, all civil libertarians should be concerned about an
Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that
such a crime has actually been committed.
Before we get to the current search, a word about what constitutes an impeachable crime under
the constitution, whose criteria are limited to treason, bribery or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. There is a debate among students of the constitution over the intended meaning of
"high crimes and misdemeanors." Some believe that these words encompass non-criminal behavior.
Others, I among them, interpret these words more literally, requiring at the least criminal-like
behavior, if not the actual violation of a criminal statute.
What is not debatable is that "maladministration" is an impermissible ground for
impeachment.
Why is that not debatable? Because it was already debated and explicitly
rejected by the framers at the constitutional convention. James Madison, the father of our
Constitution, opposed such open-ended criteria, lest they make the tenure of the president subject
to the political will of Congress. Such criteria would turn our republic into a parliamentary
democracy in which the leader -- the prime minister -- is subject to removal by a simple vote of no
confidence by a majority of legislators. Instead, the framers demanded the more specific
criminal-like criteria ultimately adopted by the convention and the states.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to change these criteria without
amending the Constitution.
To paraphrase what many Democratic legislators are now saying:
members of Congress are not above the law; they take an oath to apply the Constitution, not to
ignore its specific criteria. Congresswoman Maxine Waters placed herself above the law when she
said:
"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates
impeachment. What the Constitution says is 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' and we define that."
So, the question remains:
did President Trump commit impeachable offenses
when he spoke on the phone to the president of Ukraine and/or when he directed members of the
Executive Branch to refuse to cooperate, absent a court order, with congressional Democrats who are
seeking his impeachment?
The answers are plainly no and no.
There is a constitutionally
significant difference between a political "sin," on the one hand, and a crime or impeachable
offenses, on the other.
Even taking the worst-case scenario regarding Ukraine -- a quid pro quo exchange of
foreign aid for a political favor -- that might be a political sin, but not a crime or impeachable
offense.
Many presidents have used their foreign policy power for political or personal
advantage.
Most recently, President Barack Obama
misused his power in order to take
personal revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last days of his second
term, Obama engineered a one-sided UN Security Council resolution declaring that Israel's control
over the Western Wall -- Judaism's holiest site -- constitutes a "flagrant violation of
international law." Nearly every member of Congress and many in his own administration opposed this
unilateral change in our policy, but Obama was determined to take revenge against Netanyahu, whom
he despised. Obama committed a political sin by placing his personal pique over our national
interest, but he did not commit an impeachable offense.
Nor did
President George H. W. Bush
commit an impeachable offense when he
pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others on the eve of their trials in order to prevent them from
pointing the finger at him.
This brings us to President Trump's directive with regard to the impeachment investigation.
Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the
Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders.
Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not
by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an
impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their
demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by
calls for impeachment.
So, the search for the holy grail of a removable offense will continue, but it is
unlikely to succeed. Our constitution provides a better way to decide who shall serve as president:
it's called an election.
Several rich and powerful Dems have said the best chance to remove
Trump is by hoping for a big recession. When asked about the
damage to people's lives, they responded it would be worth it. It
shows they care nothing about the little people, just about their
own power and wealth. The godless leftists think they can take
over easily once Trump is out of their way. They doubt any
conservatives will put up a fight, just roll over on the couch and
change the channel. It will be very sad if this is true.
Coup d'Impeachment ers Pelosi and Schiff have lied to congress and
to the American public. Congress is not censuring, sanctioning,
expelling or prosecuting them for their crimes.
How do citizens
do what congress should, but for RICO reasons and concealing their
crimes, do not? Sue like JW to build a case and take it to a
judge? The coup has already established that judges can overrule
decisions by the President. The openly criminal Speaker claims her
position is "coequal" to the President, therefore her decisions
and the gangster congress can be overturned the same way. If there
are enough straight, vertebrate judges.
Any members of congress who commit felonies or treason can be
hauled off at any time.
What to do about the openly hostile, openly comped, complicit,
accessory MSM?
"... "I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt." ..."
"... "We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where the media would have played such a role? ..."
"... "I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said. ..."
The anti- Trump "Resistance" has devastated core American
institutions and broken longstanding political norms in seeking to defeat and now oust from office President Donald Trump, said Kimberley
Strassel, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and member of the Journal's editorial board.
"And this, to me, is the irony, right? We've been told for three years that Donald Trump is wrecking institutions," Strassel
said in an interview with The Epoch Times for the "American Thought Leaders" program.
" But in terms of real wreckage to institutions, it's not on Donald Trump that public faith in the
FBI and the
Department of Justice has precipitously fallen.
That's because of Jim Comey and Andy McCabe. It's not on Donald Trump that the Senate confirmation process for the Supreme Court
is in ashes after what happened to Brett Kavanaugh. It's not on Donald Trump that we are turning
impeachment into a partisan political tool."
The damage inflicted by the anti-Trump Resistance is the subject of Strassel's new book, "Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump
Haters Are Breaking America."
Strassel uses the term "haters" deliberately, to differentiate this demographic from Trump's "critics."
In Strassel's view, all thoughtful critics of Trump - and she counts herself among them - would look at Trump the same way that
they have examined past presidents - namely, to call him out when he does something wrong, but also laud him when he does something
right.
" The 'haters' can't abide nuance. To the Resistance, any praise - no matter how qualified - of Trump is tantamount to American
betrayal, " Strassel writes in "Resistance (At All Costs)."
She told The Epoch Times: "Up until the point at which Donald Trump was elected, what happened when political parties lost is
that they would retreat, regroup, lick their wounds, talk about what they did wrong.
"That's not what happened this time around. Instead, you had people who essentially said we should have won."
From the moment Trump was elected, this group believed Trump to be an illegitimate president and therefore felt they could use
whatever means necessary to remove him from office , Strassel said.
'Unprecedented Acts'
"One thing I try really hard to do in this book is enunciate what rules and regulations and standards were broken, what political
boundaries were crossed, because I think that that's where we're seeing the damage," Strassel said.
The "unprecedented acts" of the Resistance have caused the public to lose trust in longstanding institutions such as the FBI,
the CIA, and the Department of Justice, and cheapened important political processes like impeachment, she said.
The Resistance fabricated and pushed the theory that it was Trump's collusion with Russia that won him the presidency, not the
support of the American people, and lied about the origins of the so-called evidence -- the Steele dossier -- that was used by the
FBI to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, Strassel said.
"We have never, in the history of this country, had a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign," she said.
In an anecdote that Strassel recounts in her book, she asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)
if there was anything in America's laws that could have prohibited this situation.
Nunes, who had helped write or update many laws concerning the powers of the intelligence community, replied, "I would never have
conceived of the FBI using our counterintelligence capabilities to target a political campaign.
"If it had crossed any of our minds, I can guarantee we'd have specifically written: 'Don't do that.'"
In Strassel's view, the Resistance is partially fueled by deep-seated anger, or what others have termed "Trump derangement syndrome"
-- an inability to look rationally at a man so far outside of Washington norms.
But at the same time, in Strassel's view, much of the Resistance is motivated by a desire to amass political power using whatever
means necessary.
"That involves removing the president who won. That involves some of these other things that you hear them talking about now:
packing the Supreme Court, getting rid of the electoral college, letting 16-year-olds vote," she said.
"These are not reforms. Reforms are things that the country broadly agrees are going to help improve stuff. This is changing
the rules so that you get power, and you stay in power."
The impeachment inquiry into the president, based on his phone call with Ukraine's president, is just another example of how the
Resistance is violating political norms and relying on flimsy evidence to try to remove him from office, she said.
Testimony in the inquiry has taken place behind closed doors, led by three House committees, and Democrats have so far refused
to release transcripts from the depositions of former and current
State Department employees.
"[Impeachment] is one of the most serious and huge powers in the Constitution. It was meant always by the founders to be reserved
for truly unusual circumstances. They debated not even putting it in because they were concerned that this is what would happen,"
Strassel said.
In the impeachment inquiries against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Strassel said, American leaders "understood the great importance
of convincing the American public that their decision to use this tool was just and legitimate.
"So if you look back at Watergate, they had hundreds of hours of testimony broadcast over TV that people tuned into and watched.
It's one of the reasons that Richard Nixon resigned before the House ever held a final impeachment vote on him, because the public
had been convinced. He knew he had to go," she said.
But now, instead of access to the testimonies, the public is receiving only leaked snippets and dueling narratives.
"You have Democrats saying, 'Oh, this is very bad.' And Republicans saying, 'Oh, it's not so bad at all.' What are Americans
supposed to think?" Strassel said.
Bureaucratic Resistance
Within the federal bureaucracy, there is a "vast swath of unelected officials" who have "a great deal of power to slow things
down, mess things up, file the whistleblower complaints, leak information, actively engage against the president's policies," Strassel
said.
"It's their job to implement his agenda. And yet a lot of them are part of the Resistance, too," she said.
Data shows that in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, government bureaucrats overwhelmingly contributed toward the
Clinton campaign over the Trump campaign.
Ninety-five percent, or about $1.9 million, of bureaucrats' donations went to Clinton, according to
The Hill's analysis of donations from federal workers up until September 2016. In particular, employees at the Department of
Justice gave 97 percent of their donations to Clinton. For the State Department, it was even higher -- 99 percent.
"Imagine being a CEO and showing up and knowing that 95 percent of your workforce despises you and doesn't want you to be there,"
Strassel said.
Strassel pointed to when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, publicly questioned
the constitutionality of Trump's immigration ban and directed Justice Department employees to disobey the order.
"It was basically a call to arms," Strassel said. "What she should've done is honorably resigned if she felt that she could
not in any way enforce this duly issued executive order.
"It really kicked off what we have seen ever since then: The nearly daily leaks from the administration, the whistleblower
complaints," as well as "all kind of internal foot-dragging and outright obstruction to the president's agenda."
According to a
report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in Trump's first 126 days in office, his administration
"faced 125 leaked stories -- one leak a day -- containing information that is potentially damaging to national security under the
standards laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama."
Activist Media
Strassel says the media has played a critical role in bolstering the anti-Trump Resistance.
"I've been a reporter for 25 years," Strassel said.
"I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years
is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt."
Along the way, the media have largely abandoned journalistic standards, "whether it be the use of anonymous sources, whether it
be putting uncorroborated accusations into the paper, whether it's using biased sources for information and cloaking them as neutral
observers," she said.
Among the many examples of media misinformation cited in Strassel's book is a December 2017 CNN piece that claimed to have evidence
that then-candidate Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. had been offered early access to hacked emails from the Democratic National
Committee. But it turned out
the date was wrong . Trump
Jr. had received an email about the WikiLeaks release one day after WikiLeaks had made the documents public.
"If it hurts Donald Trump, they're on board," Strassel said. And in many cases, the attacks on Trump have been contradictory.
"He's either the dunce you claim he is every day or he's the most sophisticated Manchurian candidate that the world has ever
seen. You can't have it both ways.
"He's either a dictator and an autocrat who is consolidating power around himself to rule with an iron fist, or he's the evil
conservative who's cutting regulations."
Contrary to claims of authoritarianism, Trump has significantly decreased the size of the federal government. Notably, he reduced
the Federal Register, a collection of all the national government's rules and regulations, to the lowest it's been since Bill Clinton's
first year in office.
"You can't be a libertarian dictator," Strassel said.
In addition to the barrage of attacks on Trump, the media has actively sought to "de-legitimize anybody who has a different viewpoint
than they do, or who is reporting the facts and the story in a way other than they would like them to be presented."
"They would love to make it sound as though none of us are worthy of writing about this story," she said.
"The media is supposed to be our guardrails, right? When a political party transgresses a political boundary, they're supposed
to say 'No, that's beyond the pale.'"
Instead, "they indulged this behavior," Strassel said.
"We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where
the media would have played such a role?
"In a way, I blame that for so much else that has gone wrong."
Long-Term Consequences
Strassel says the actions taken by the Resistance will have long-term consequences for America.
"I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said.
For example, if Joe Biden wins the presidency in 2020
but Republicans take back the House, would the Republican-dominated House immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Biden
for alleged corruption in Ukraine?
"I wouldn't necessarily use the word [corruption], but there's a lot of Republicans who happily would. And if they thought
they'd get another shot at the White House, why not?" Strassel said.
It's short-term thinking, she said, just like Sen. Harry Reid's decision in 2013 to drop the number of votes needed to overcome
a filibuster for lower-court judges.
"Did he really stop to think about the fact that it paved the way for Republicans to get rid of the filibuster for Supreme
Court judges?" Strassel said.
If there's any rule in Washington, "it's that when you set the bar low, it just keeps going lower," Strassel said.
"Donald Trump is going to be president for at most another five years. But the actions and the destruction that's coming with
some of this could be with us for a very long time," she said.
"Should anyone allow their deep disregard for one particular man to so change the structure and the fabric of the country?"
"... Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless it was from Trump from Trump's mouth, then it's hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever. ..."
Certainly the people appointed by a president are not merely proxies for the president. They
are expected to have their own minds and agendas to some extent. This should not run to the
extent of subverting the president, but it often has, if not always. At the same time, it is
reasonable for appointees and beaurocrats to attempt to subvert the president if the
president is clearly wrong. The big problem is that such subversion is not only commonplace,
but is not typically for good reasons.
Yes, it was disturbing yesterday to observe a strain in the comments that were diatribes
against Trump's character--a vehemence to dismiss or heavily discount Trump's every move. If
this is the continued attitude it's logical to expect an equal. Opposite reaction from Trump
supporters, that is expect a self-defeating lose of votes for opposing candidates. People
take their heroes to heart notwithstanding too many are often miserable characters.
Lets now see how jackrabbit will counter argue b's analysis point by point in an effort to convince us its all KABUKI. But
then again why not preach to his own choir at his new blog where folks can revel in Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt? One wonders.
I think the same is happening in Kiev and Ukraine.
The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of military aid was
contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the
2016 election, contradicting President Trump's denial that he used the money as leverage
for political gain.
Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless it was from Trump from
Trump's mouth, then it's hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever.
Acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. testified behind closed doors in the House
impeachment probe of Trump that he stands by his characterization that it was "crazy" to
make the assistance contingent on investigations he found troubling.
Who says the assistance was contingent on investigations? And what was troubling
about the investigations? If it had been Trump who'd paid for opposition research by a
foreign govt. or ic the demands for impeachment would have been even shriller.
Upon arriving in Kyiv last spring he became alarmed by secondary diplomatic channels
involving U.S. officials that he called "weird," Taylor said, according to a copy of his
lengthy opening statement obtained by The Washington Post.
Well, there you have it. The State Dept going outside regular channel and
talking to who? Would intervention by Giuliani be described as "secondary diplomatic
channels". Nah, so it's State Dept. officials. Time to clear out Soggy Bottom!
Former national security officials fight back as Trump attacks impeachment as 'deep
state' conspiracy
"What is happening currently is not normal," said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who served as
a U.S. intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasia before stepping down in 2018. "This
represents a deviation from the way that these institutions regularly function. And when the
institutions don't work, that is a national security threat."
She was among 90 national security veterans who signed an open letter published Sunday
in support of the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint that Trump had acted
improperly in asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden in a July phone
call.
Trump has attempted to intimidate other government officials into not cooperating by
casting those who offered information to the whistleblower as "close to spies." The open
letter emphasized that the whistleblower "is protected from certain egregious forms of
retaliation."
Victor Pinchuk. Ukranian Parliament member.
Atlantic Council board member
$25 million in charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation
Atlantic Council is a partner with Burisma
How systemic was the corruption within the Obama administration, and who was really pulling
the strings?
and all of its connections in Ukraine with ByeDone's son etc. I was going to essay it, but
it's better if you all just read the whole thing. It's really really good.
Looks like a testimony of a member of Nuland neocons clique.
A reasonable Trump administration gesture of delaying military aid now is interpreted as a
pressure on Zelensky government. But not everybody in Zelensky government is interesting in the
USA military aid; most including probably Zelensky himself understand that this carrot s the way
US neocon push Ukraine in self-destructive game of to catching hot potatoes from the fire to
advance the USA strategic anti-Russian interests in the region.
Trump is right that Ukraine participated in Russiagate, but he is wrong that Poroshenko
administration acted as a supplementary force in Russiagate on its own initiative: in reality
Poroshenko was the USA marionette fully controlled from Washington and would do anything to
please Obama administration.
Notable quotes:
"... "He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.' He said they 'tried to take me down.' ..."
"Second, in May of this year, I became concerned that a negative narrative about Ukraine,
fueled by assertions made by Ukraine's departing Prosecutor General, was reaching the President
of the United States, and impeding our ability to support the new Ukrainian government as
robustly as I believed we should."
"Fifth and finally, I strongly supported the provision of U.S. security assistance,
including lethal defensive weapons, to Ukraine throughout my tenure."
...While Volker said Biden did not come up explicitly in his conversations, he made a point
of defending the former vice president in his remarks. "I have known former Vice President
Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice
President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me," he wrote. "I know him as a man
of integrity and dedication to our country."
... ... ...
Volker also testified that while he was aware that the Trump administration
had put a hold on needed military aid to Ukraine at the same time that he was connecting
Giuliani with Zelensky's government, "I did not perceive these issues to be linked in any way."
Volker said that "no reason was given" for the holdup, but it concerned him; he "stressed"
to staff at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council that the aid
was vital to Ukraine's security, "deterrence of Russian aggression," and Ukraine's relationship
with the US.
"That said, I was not overly concerned about the development because I believed the decision
would ultimately be reversed," Volker told Congress, citing the "unanimous position" of
Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the NSC in favor of restoring the aid. "I
knew it would just be a matter of time."
...On his contacts with Rudy Giuliani, Volker said he became aware early this year about "an
emerging, negative narrative about Ukraine in the United States, fueled by accusations made by
the then–prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, that some Ukrainian citizens may
have sought to influence" the 2016 presidential election in the US, "including by passing
information that was detrimental to" Trump, which they hoped would reach Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
"I believed that these accusations by Mr. Lutsenko were themselves self-serving, intended to
make himself appear valuable to the United States, so that the United States might weigh in
against his being removed from office by the new government," Volker said.
...Volker told Congress that he learned in May this year that Giuliani planned to travel to
Ukraine to look into the unsubstantiated allegations that Biden had used his position as vice
president to benefit his son Hunter Biden. Volker said he contacted Giuliani to say that
Lutsenko was not credible -- Volker said they had a brief phone call, but didn't say how
Giuliani responded. Giuliani later canceled his trip. Volker noted that Giuliani claimed at the
time that Zelensky was surrounded "by enemies of the United States," a sentiment that Volker
said he "fundamentally disagreed" with.
...Giuliani came up repeatedly in Volker's conversations with Zelensky and the Ukrainian
president's administration. Volker said he had a private conversation with Zelensky in early
July, and told Zelensky that a "negative view" of Ukraine -- one that Giuliani held -- was
"likely making its way to" Trump. A week later, Volker met with Yermak, the Zelensky aide, who
asked to be connected to Giuliani.
...
Volker also testified to Congress that he met with Trump in May and suggested that
the president invite Zelensky to the White House, arguing Zelensky could help clean up
corruption in Ukraine. But Volker said that Trump was "very skeptical" of Zelensky at the
time.
"He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.' He said they
'tried to take me down.' In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations
with Mayor Giuliani," Volker said. "It was clear to me that despite the positive news and
recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President, President
Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was clearly receiving
other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing
him to retain this negative view."
Michael McFaul was the key person in failed "white color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012
designed to prevent reelection of Putin. h was recalled soon after Putin elections. So his praise
instantly suggests that the other person might be a color revolution specialist as well
In this sense his participation in Ukrainegate is just a top of his long carier as colore
revolution specialist. Ukrainegate does looks like the second Maydan.
Michael
McFaul, who served as the US ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, called Taylor, who he's
known for three decades, "just a consummate public servant."
"I do remember when he was ambassador to Ukraine he saw the bigness of the moment -- this is
well before Russia annexed Crimea and went into Donbass -- that fighting for sovereignty for
Ukraine and democracy and anti-corruption, he was very committed to that," McFaul said.
Easy ;-) Weaken the Deep State (aka drain the swamp). Remove three factors driving
impeachment: Obama mafia, Clintons mafia and Brennan mafia. Neutralizing them probably mean
(imperfect but workable) vaccine against impeachment derangement.
The author does not understand that neoliberal coup d'état against Trump is driven by
the burning desire to kick the can down the road and ignore the crisi of neoliberalism that led
to Trump election (as well as Brexit and Orban in Europe)
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that Americans are steps away from squaring off across the field at Gettysburg is something that should only exist in satire. It would be hilarious, except that such fantasizing is influencing the actual future of our country. We have crossed a line where rationality is in the rearview mirror. Most of us have lost track of the constitutional crises that have never actually happened since the first one was declared, over the non-issue of Trump losing the popular vote in 2016. ..."
"... What was it last week? Sharpiegate? Or the hotel in Scotland? Or an impeding war with Iran/North Korea/China? Or treason? Or something about security clearances? The Kurds were a thing in 2017 and again now. Paul Krugman of the New York Times first declared that Trump was going to destroy the economy in 2016 , and has written the same article regularly ever since, most recently just last week . It doesn't seem to matter that none of these things have actually proven to be true. Learned people are saying them again and again. ..."
"... It wasn't supposed to be this way. The fantasy was to use Robert Mueller's summer testimony about Trump being a literal Russian asset to stir up the masses -- Mueller Time, Baby! Congress would go home for August recess to be bombarded by cries for impeachment, and then autumn would feature hearings and revelations amplified by the Blue Check harpies leading up to, well, something big. ..."
"... Desperation makes for poor strategy. Think back just two weeks and no one had heard of any of this. Yet Dems and the media took America from zero to 100 nearly overnight as if this was another 9/11. With the winter caucuses approaching, Dems in search of a crime groped at something half slipped under the door and half bundled up by clever lawyers to be slipped under the door. Mueller was a lousy patsy so a better one needed to be found in the shallow end of the Deep State pool. It wasn't much but it was going to have to be made good enough. ..."
"... The details will come out and they will stink. The first whistleblower had some sort of prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democrat. Given that he is a CIA analyst, that suggests a member of Vice President Biden's White House team, Cory Booker's Committee on Foreign Relations, or maybe Kamala Harris's Select Committee on Intelligence. ..."
"... The so-called second whistleblower appears to actually be one of the sources for the first whistleblower. That's a feedback loop , an old CIA trick where you create the appearance of a credible source by providing your own confirming source. It was tried with the Steele Dossier where the original text given to the FBI appeared to be backed up by leaks filtered through the media and John McCain's office. ..."
"... It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all. ..."
"... And of course MSNBC hires Brennan whose CIA spied on Congress when it was investigating torture. No principles here at all. ..."
"... When they put State power brokers over the will of the people and love of country, it equals Ideology. What they really worship is the ideology itself. All of the various actors are just tools in service of that cause. ..."
"... a lot of the call was about Crowd Strike, not that anyone noticed ..."
"... The Democrats are doing the impossible by making Trump look good by comparison. ..."
"... As I think we all have come to understand, the Swamp is disconnected from mainstreet, [it is] a world all its own. Point being, neither side realizes most Americans have tuned this whole issue out. Two years of Russia gate led to exhaustion. My bigger concern going forward after Americans get a chance to vote in 2020, is, is this how we are destined to be governed ? ..."
"... Bush, Obama, and Trump have all committed vastly larger crimes and in our twisted political culture these don’t matter. Remember when centrist liberals claimed to care about torture and war under false pretenses? ..."
"... And all these former intelligence goons like Brennan are embraced on the liberal cable networks, even if the now beloved intelligence community tortured prisoners, lied about it, and spied on Congress. ..."
"... Had DT used withheld military aid to strong-arm Ukraine to do something in the national interest, then it would have been business as usual. Everyone expects a President to wheel, deal, lie and cheat for the nation. ..."
"... The public knew what Trump was about from the very beginning. That he was bumptious, impetuous, always shooting from the hip and often saying stupid things. And yet he was nominated by one of the two major parties, then turned around and beat the candidate of the other major party. What does that say about this country, other than its citizens elected a real estate businessman turned TV star with no political experience whatsover as president ..."
"... It's all a diversion (among many others) from what we should all be talking and doing something about anyway. It's all part of a sick game the global elites entertain and enrich themselves with. ..."
"... 'Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America' - Peter van Buren, Oct 14, 2019 'We should have a revolution in this country!' - Donald Trump, Nov 6th, 2012 ..."
Can any of the Democratic candidates pull America back from this
madness?
Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America. This
began after Trump
retweeted a pastor saying impeachment would cause a "civil war-like fracture in this
Nation." Never mind that it was a retweet, and never mind that the original statement used
"like" to make a comparison. The next headline was
set: Trump Threatens Civil War If He's Impeached. Newsweek
quoted a Harvard Law professor saying that the "threat" alone made Trump impeachable.
Another
headline asked: "If Trump's Rage Brings Civil War, Where Will the Military Stand?"
Blowing up some online nonsense into a declaration of war tracks with the meme that Trump
will
refuse to leave office if defeated in 2020, or will declare himself
the winner even if he loses, sending coded messages
to armed minions. "Trump Is Going to Burn Down Everything and Everyone," reads the headline
from a NASDAQ-listed media
outlet . "Before Trump will allow himself to be chased from the temple, he'll bring it
down,"
wroteTheNew York Times.
That's just what the MSM is saying; it gets worse the further off the
road you drive . "Trump
is going to try everything, Fox is going to try everything, and they're going to both further
the injuring of societal reality and inspire dangerous individuals to kill and maim," Jared
Yates Sexton, a well-known academic, tweeted on
September 28 . "There's a vast number of people in this, people who have been taught their
whole lives that they might need to kill in case of a coup or corrupt takeover," he continued.
"Trump and Republicans signal to them constantly. They're more than ready to see this as the
occasion."
The idea that Americans are steps away from squaring off across the field at Gettysburg
is something that should only exist in satire. It would be hilarious, except that such
fantasizing is influencing the actual future of our country. We have crossed a line where
rationality is in the rearview mirror. Most of us have lost track of the constitutional crises
that have never actually happened since the first one was declared, over the non-issue of Trump
losing the popular vote in 2016.
What was it last week? Sharpiegate? Or the hotel in Scotland? Or an impeding war with
Iran/North Korea/China? Or treason? Or something about security clearances? The Kurds were a
thing in
2017 and again now. Paul Krugman of the New York Times first declared that Trump was going
to destroy the economy in
2016 , and has written the same article regularly ever since, most recently just last
week . It doesn't seem to matter that none of these things have actually proven to be true.
Learned people are
saying them again and again.
Those who oppose Trump have convinced themselves they must impeach for something , and if
all of Russiagate (remember that? It's like Aunt Edna's brief failed marriage, only not
mentioned at the dinner table) wasn't enough, then Democrats will impeach over a phone call to
a minor world leader.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The fantasy was to use Robert Mueller's summer
testimony about Trump being a literal Russian asset to stir up the masses -- Mueller Time,
Baby! Congress would go home for August recess to be bombarded by cries for impeachment, and
then autumn would feature hearings and revelations amplified by the Blue Check harpies leading
up to, well, something big.
Were rationality still in vogue, it would be hard to imagine that Democrats would consider
the Ukraine call impeachable. But they closed out Russiagate like the OJ Simpson murder trial,
certain Trump had gotten away with so much that they had to catch him at something else to make
it even.
Desperation makes for poor strategy. Think back just two weeks and no one had heard of
any of this. Yet Dems and the media took America from zero to 100 nearly overnight as if this
was another 9/11. With the winter caucuses approaching, Dems in search of a crime groped at
something half slipped under the door and half
bundled up by clever lawyers to be slipped under the door. Mueller was a lousy patsy so a
better one needed to be found in the shallow end of the Deep State pool. It wasn't much but it
was going to have to be made good enough.
The details will come out and they will stink. The
first whistleblower had some sort of prior working relationship with a current 2020
Democrat. Given that he is a CIA analyst, that suggests a member of Vice President Biden's
White House team, Cory Booker's Committee on Foreign Relations, or maybe Kamala Harris's Select
Committee on Intelligence.
The so-called
second whistleblower appears to actually be one of the sources for the first whistleblower.
That's a
feedback loop , an old CIA trick where you create the appearance of a credible source by
providing your own confirming source. It was tried with the
Steele Dossier where the original text given to the FBI appeared to be backed up by leaks
filtered through the media and John McCain's office.
So forget everything about this cooked-to-order crisis except the actual thing impeachment
would turn on: the transcript of Trump's call. It does not matter what one, two, or 200
whistleblowers, former Obama officials, or talking heads "
think " about the call. There it is, the actual words, all pink and naked on the Internet
for everyone to read. Ukraine did not investigate Biden. Trump did not withhold aid. The
attorney general was
not involved. DOJ ruled there was
no violation of the law. It has little to do with Pompeo or Pence (though Pompeo was
on the call ). You and the Congress pretty much have it all in the transcript. It's
bathroom reading,
five pages .
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of
ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health
care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at that, gussied up as
"saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about
running again, with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions
has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any chance for a Democratic candidate to reach
into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has been
lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat
poet, often wrote. His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that
madness (Trump Derangement in modern terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet
came into being to push tailored ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in
knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter and in the Times ,
is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and
crazier stuff. What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like
Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering to strangers at what a mess this had all become:
"Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade
farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at
all.
You are the idiot if you think Peter doesn't know what the Mem-Con was. He was one of the
first to explain exactly how the process works. It's as close to an actual recording as it
gets and all parties sign off on the "Memo Of Communication" stating it's accurate before
it's saved.The idiots are the ones who think it's not accurate, grasping at straws doesn't
help you. But it does serve to make a point, YOU like bobbleheaded Shift realize that the
Transcript, as it stands, does not point to anything illegal so you like Shift make stuff up.
Each and every time you guys make the claim that it's not a real transcript it's a
admission that even YOU don't think what's in the call is illegal. Think about that one for a
second.
OH and you can claim that he did it to "punish his political opponents" all you like,
that's just spin, just as anyone can much more easily spin this as Trump's duty to find out.
Anything that requires mindreading isn't actual evidence and the "spin" in this case is
exactly that. Unless you crawl into his head you don't know if he did it to hurt Biden or
Help America, so either way we are left with his call as the only real evidence, the one you
yourself think was altered to the point where it no longer shows wrongdoing.
It’s clear that you are suffering from the Impeachment Derangement Virus as mentioned
in the article.
The President’s calls to world leaders were being leaked all throughout the
beginning of his presidency. That is a national security issue and so they added an extra
layer of security using a password protected system that had been used by previous
administrations. Your fantasy about the contents “alarming staffers” is absolute
nonsense because even in the “whistleblower” statement it states that other calls
to world leaders were also being put into this secured system. The fact that other calls are
being put into this system shows just how delusional your fantasy about this call being
special in some way, truly is.
As for the texts, as the author stated the opinion of what a diplomat THINKS is the
motivation is proof of absolutely nothing especially when that diplomat is told point blank
in the next text that his opinion is not factual.
Rational people understand all this. Those with Impeachment Derangement Virus do not.
DT is a populist, in an age where politics is all about withholding from the people what they
most want, because the people's instincts are deemed by the liberal consensus to be too
"deplorable" to follow.
Another great example is Brexit. The elite made the foolish mistake of asking the people of
the country what they wanted, and have spent 3 years tying things in ridiculous knots to
avoid the outcome the people voted to have.
Trump won the game according to the game's rules, but if you're gonna start opining about
what "The People" want, it kinda seems like you need to at least start by addressing the part
where millions more of The People voted for Trump's opponent.
Trump is not a populist, he is an opportunist and a nationalist who wants everyone to
recognize his greatness.
He is using the rubes to that end, he doesn’t care what happens to you.
DT ran as a populist and is unpopular. HC ran as a technocrat and her political machine
broke. Therefore both lost in 2016, in ways most personally humiliating to each.
This cloak and dagger nonsense is all about trying to give an air of authority to this
ridiculous plot to impeach Trump. This issue does however show just how disturbingly far left
the USA has become, when leftists worship spy chiefs as the ultimate authority figures.
To all the leftists here that think that people like Clapper or Brennan are in any way
respected or in any way seen as legitimate, think again.
Broadly speaking the Left doesn't trust the intelligence community or the police any further
it can throw them. It says something about the sad state of affairs we are in that the Left
is now supporting its traditional enemy in order to save the Republic from the traitorous
ra*ist the Right has put in the White House.
Sorry, but no. Trump is a terrible human being, but that broad left you speak of is composed
of mainstream centrist liberals and various people further left. Centrist liberals have
demonstrated no moral consistency on the crimes committed by the intelligence community or
the interventionist state in general.
They claimed to be outraged by such things during the
Bush era, then forgot about them or even switched sides when Obama came in. They
wouldn’t dream of impeaching Bush for war crimes ( and become furious when
Obama’s are pointed out) but they think Trump’s use of the office to obtain dirt
on Biden is a matter of principle. Think about that. War crimes are trivial. Look forward,
not back. The use of Trump’s powers to obtain dirt against Biden— not acceptable.
And of course MSNBC hires Brennan whose CIA spied on Congress when it was investigating
torture. No principles here at all.
How many times did you hear "seventeen intelligence agencies proven it! ZOMG!" while the
RussiaGate conspiracy theory was au courant?
For that matter, I was frequently treated to the spectacle of Team D partisans insisting
that any questioning of "our intelligence community" was ipso facto "treason".
As if it were our patriotic duty to unquestioningly accept anonymous statements from
perjurers (NSA), torturers (CIA) and entrapment artists (FBI) all with a long track record of
lying and talking about supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
When they put State power brokers over the will of the people and love of country, it equals
Ideology. What they really worship is the ideology itself. All of the various actors are just
tools in service of that cause.
Laughing Well,
you might want to actually read those messages . . . seeing them is one thing reading them
is another. If i were a democratic supporter --- you bet i would be alarmed.
The cat is getting of the bag and the cat is covered in unsavory behavior by the state
department and the supporters of the Ukrainian revolution against a democratic state and ally
of the US.
A cabal that nearly sent the Ukraine into a complete civil war ----- encourage and
participated in by the previous admin. under the direct leadership of the Sec of State, Madam
Hillary Clinton.
Its very damning but who is damned was not in office at the time.
Quiz for the day:
Does this “whistleblower” even exist? Or is it a composite creation of the
CIA, Schiff and Co?
Did Schiff and friends turn ghostly white when Trump called their bluff by releasing the
transcript?
Is Pelosi’s new found reticence a result of her self annoyance that she let herself
get talked into this new debacle and payback is to let Schiff shift in the wind dangling over
the thought that no one in the CIA wants to walk the plank for him?
Do the Democrats and their allies in the deep state increasingly look like the Keystone
Kops?
What is referred to commonly as the “transcript” is a U.S. government memorandum
of conversation. Over the course of my 24 years at the State Department I saw and wrote many
of them as the official record of conversations. At the White House level, voice recognition
software is used to help transcribe what is being said, even as one or more trained note
takers are at work. Afterwards the people who listened to the call have to sign off on the
accuracy and completeness of the document. It is the final word on what was said in that
call.
though in a less forward manner the policies of candidates, including foreign policies and
their implications are always at issue regarding selection.
It may be unseemly to have it brazenly broadcast, but illegal -- not. The real question
here is whether members of the democratic and republican party solicit, incite, encourage a
violent revolution in the Ukraine against a democratic ally of the US and in so doing,
encourage and engage in graft, theft or illegal influence, such as demanding the removal of a
prosecutor attempting to regain some stability and investigative power into how that
incitement corrupted and disrupted Ukrainian politics. In otherwords, have member of the US
colluded with certain forces in the Ukraine to over throw a democratically elected
government, that the international community and the Ukrainians indicated was fair. This
activity goes well beyond supplying weapons and post posters, but involved bribing, and
removing government officials. Unlike the consideration in Iran, which was an inside coupe,
the Ukrainnian affair seems to have been led and run by the US and Europeans, political,
economic and intelligence members. And it seems to include a company that used similar
tactics in the US to incite suspcion by using falsified computer data, accuasations of
hacking in an attempt to falsey accuse the US candidate of colluding with the Russians
because part of his agenda was to reduce tensions in between, the Ukraine, Russia and the
US.
And peaceful negotiations threatened to uncover those violations of international law by
members of the US and Eurpoean communities in which US citizens used the unstable environment
in the Ukraine which they fostered to engage in graft.
Could not have said it better myself. We are truly in bizzaro-World.
The Bidens are scooping
up as much IMF (read American) cash as they can in Ukraine with some more on the side in
China, and all the shrieking is about Trump who asked the leader of a country, to cooperate
in investigating an ongoing criminal investigation (a lot of the call was about Crowd Strike,
not that anyone noticed).
We have a treaty with Ukraine which obligates exactly that. The
Biden's activity is about as bald a case of corruption and bribe-taking as one could imagine.
Barr is investigating the nauseating deep-state origins of Russia-gate, but in today's World
I'm not that confident that the truth will ever come out. Trump is stupid, but his enemies
are far, far worse.
The rabid drivel dripping from the mouths of the lib-Dem-media regarding Trump's supposed
existential threat to the universe -- complete with idiotic hysteria about refusing to leave
office and so forth -- is yet another example of their habit of projection, namely accusing
others of tactics and threats that they themselves routinely employ.
They're the ones who refused to accept the results of the 2016 election, after their
criminal attempt to subvert the campaign of one of the candidates, and they've put us through
three years of what Peter Van Buren correctly calls "madness" ever since -- like 3-year olds
rolling on the floor kicking and screaming because they didn't get their way.
They've got the media, the Ruling Class, the Deep State, and most of the power brokers on
their side, and yet laughably portray themselves as victims and targets of oppression. They
are doing serious damage to this country and they are worthy of contempt, which is what I
feel for them.
The Democrats are doing the impossible by making Trump look good by comparison. When Trump
finally wakes up to the fact that his opponents will never relent until he is in jail, along
with his family, he will respond in ways that will abrogate what little remains of this
constitutional democracy. Many will support him because of the opposition's overreach. Will
it rise to the level of a civil war? Will millions take to the streets if Adam Schiff is
jailed for treason? I doubt it. That's the hole the Democrats are digging for themselves and
the country.
As I think we all have come to understand, the Swamp is disconnected from mainstreet, [it is] a
world all its own. Point being, neither side realizes most Americans have tuned this whole
issue out. Two years of Russia gate led to exhaustion. My bigger concern going forward after
Americans get a chance to vote in 2020, is, is this how we are destined to be governed ?
I think that in the desire to attack this column about Ukrainegate, people ignored the
earlier point, which is that some liberals are unhinged. Go back and read it. I think that
part is right.
I also think Trump tried to use his office to obtain dirt on a political foe, which is
impeachable imo. But here is my problem.
Bush, Obama, and Trump have all committed vastly
larger crimes and in our twisted political culture these don’t matter. Remember when
centrist liberals claimed to care about torture and war under false pretenses? That is long
gone. Bush is a lovable figure now. Centrist liberals never did care about Obama’s
crimes—drone strikes, Yemen, arming terrorists in Syria. They are more likely to
despise whistleblowers like Snowden than care about mass surveillance. Trump’s war in
Yemen was ignored by most liberals until Khashoggi’s murder and then many of them
seriously seem to think Trump started it. It still doesn’t interest them that much. You
can’t impeach Trump for complicity in genocide without looking at what other Presidents
have done, so best focus on Ukrainegate.
And all these former intelligence goons like Brennan are embraced on the liberal cable
networks, even if the now beloved intelligence community tortured prisoners, lied about it,
and spied on Congress.
Oh, I forgot one thing. As shoddy as Trump’s behavior is, notice how we just accept
that we should be arming yet another side in what is in part a civil war in the Ukraine.
That’s just what we do.
I am not defending conservatives. Most conservatives, with some honorable exceptions, are
worse. But the whole political system is run by competing morally repugnant factions.
Excuse me,
a little integrity is in order here ----- The current president inherited these wars, and while he must take responsibility for them
during his tenure, they aren't his.
And oddly enough as much as I opposed the previous executive, They weren't a part of his
agenda until he chose interventionists as part his admin. He owns them lock stock and barrel
-- he should have declined to add Sec Clinton and her interventionists.
The issue with outsiders is that in attempts to placate insiders derails their agenda.
Which, if it's even true, is germane to a blatant attempt to leverage and extort them into doing so... why?
"Trump did not withhold aid."
Trump absolutely did withhold aid, until conspicuously releasing that hold for unstated reasons a couple of days after
learning of the whistleblower communicating with Congress. I guess his concerns about "corruption" just suddenly evaporated,
said the ostrich to the hole.
"The attorney general was not involved."
That remains to be seen, though...
"DOJ ruled there was no violation of the law."
...he still has plenty of ways to try and shield his client. I like how you offer this, like Bill Barr's DOJ has a shred of
credibility for objective application of the law right now.
"It has little to do with Pompeo or Pence (though Pompeo was on the call)."
How on Earth do you know this? There's growing evidence that Pence absolutely WAS in-the-know to some extent, and Pompeo is
actively assisting with the WH attempts to stonewall the unambiguous, Constitutionally granted impeachment powers of the
House, by telling his employees not to respect lawful subpoenas for testimony and documents.
It must give TAC writers like Larison heartburn to see Peter's terrible arguments so prominently displayed on the website
every week.
What this article fails to appreciate is that the majority of Americans are suffering from
Trumpzaustion. We are tired of the daily barrage of tweets, corruption, graft,
patronage, incompetence, incivility, lies, emoluments, edicts by Tweet, destruction of
alliances, lies, racism, sexism, obstinacy, impulsive executive decisions that turn sour,
disregard for science and expertise generally, lies, nepotism, narcissism, vulgarity,
hypocrisy, and did I mention lies?
This administration is annoying, costing many of us time and treasure, and like a migraine
headache, we just want it to go away.
Yes, the media and Democrats want to degrade any Republican Politician's powers by any means
necessary. They have done that to all past Republican Presidents going back to Nixon.
On the other hand, Trump gives them all of the ammo that they need to promote their
narrative. He is a caricature of the narcissistic, corrupt, crony capitalist Republican that
the media loves to sell to the public.
For crying out loud, the very next day after the Mueller probe ended, Trump appeared to
try to pressure a foreign nation to help him get reelected. If you don't recognize that Trump
gives his enemies ammo by his own reckless behaviour, then you may be in denial.
Had DT used withheld military aid to strong-arm Ukraine to do something in the national
interest, then it would have been business as usual. Everyone expects a President to
wheel, deal, lie and cheat for the nation. But the favors he extorted from Ukraine were personal . That's not in the unwritten rules.
Trump is being impeached for doing the wrong quid pro quo. This is the world we
live in.
The public knew what Trump was about from the very beginning. That he was bumptious,
impetuous, always shooting from the hip and often saying stupid things. And yet he was
nominated by one of the two major parties, then turned around and beat the candidate of the
other major party. What does that say about this country, other than its citizens elected a
real estate businessman turned TV star with no political experience whatsover as president.
A
"cri de coeur?" Perhaps. This thing of ours doesn't work anymore . There are a lot of things
wrong with this country but one thing seems increasingly and disturbingly clear: our system
of government, which was put into place via a document written in the late 18th century is
not responsive to the needs of the 21st. So much needs to be changed, starting with:
1.) De-emphasizing the office of Presidency, which has increasingly become more a source
of entertainment rather than enlightenment (to the extent that ANY president has ever been
"enlightened"). There was a very good reason why the first article of the US Constitution
refers to the legislature and not to the executive (or, for that matter, to the
judiciary).
2.) Instituting a multi-party system rather than the current farce--which has long since
become archaic.
Perhaps the time has at last come for a second Constitutional Convention, because the
rules no longer fit the game. A constitution prepared in 1787 when the US was still an
agrarian society consisting of 13 states from Maine to Florida and from the Atlantic seaboard
to the Alleghenies with a total population of less than 4 million may simply not be
responsive to the US of 2019, an advanced, information based, society consisting of 330
million (and counting) situated on a land mass of nearly 3.8 million square miles. Either we
may have to re-think what it means to govern ourselves in the 21st century or--and I shudder
at the thought-- perhaps the concept of what we call "the United States of America" may no
longer be tenable.
It was, after all is said and done, only meant to be an experiment.
"So forget everything about this cooked-to-order crisis except the actual thing impeachment
would turn on: the transcript of Trump’s call. It does not matter what one, two, or 200
whistleblowers, former Obama officials, or talking heads “think” about the call.
There it is, the actual words, all pink and naked on the Internet for everyone to read.
Ukraine did not investigate Biden. Trump did not withhold aid. The attorney general was not
involved. DOJ ruled there was no violation of the law. It has little to do with Pompeo or
Pence (though Pompeo was on the call). You and the Congress pretty much have it all in the
transcript. It’s bathroom reading, five pages."
How dare you suggest reality be considered on this matter. And it may be more ironic than
what went on before --- but there are plenty of places and reasons to find humor --
even if the humor is the result of tragedy.
"“Before Trump will allow himself to be chased from the temple, he’ll bring it
down,” wrote The New York Times."
Laughing.
Now there's an interesting reference --- Samson in the Temple ---
I couldn't give a bucket of methane emitting cow dung whether Trump is impeached or not. It's all a diversion (among many
others) from what we should all be talking and doing something about anyway. It's all part of a sick game the global elites entertain and enrich themselves with.
Have a gander at this recent interview by Greg Hunter and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts -
https://usawatchdog.com/oli... - I may not agree with all of the conclusions the good Dr.
has drawn but a lot of what he says does have a ring of truth to it based on my own
independent research into a various aspects of our so-called civilization.
Unfortunately for the Dems, not one of them has one tenth of Trump's charisma and ability to
campaign. He doesn't need to be right all the time, his personality will carry him through,
and the more the Dems plot, the smaller they look. Is there anyone in world to put him in the
shade?
'Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America' - Peter van Buren,
Oct 14, 2019
'We should have a revolution in this country!' - Donald Trump, Nov 6th, 2012
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on domestic
soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside the US of
A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Also, there is no "transcript" of any conversation between Trump and any other head of
state. Because there is no recording or verbatim typed record (such as a court reporter would
make) due to diplomatic protocols agreed by all parties.
There are only informal notes taken by witnesses at the time of the call. (Unless Snowden
is correct about the private contractors working for the NSA).
As for anti Russian propaganda, look first to the UK, who have been at it for several
hundred years, and who are in the habit of knighting American Republican presidents who take
orders from the square mile and Downing street, or whitehall and Balmoral castle.
The new cold war is an international project aimed at demonising Putin, who god knows is
no saint, but who is also no dummy. Unlike the image Trump likes to cultivate. Has anyone
noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press has become on
their behalf?
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on
domestic soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside
the US of A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Has anyone noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press
has become on their behalf?
You answered your own questions. The law is for sheeple, Deep State does not give a hoot
about the laws, constitution, and the rest of the niceties.
@AnonFromTN
Limpet bombs on Japanese tanker, in the arabian sea, failed coup in Vn, Skripal case, etc.
Are the clumsy examples i was thinking of. They behave as if there is no internet. Not sure
if they are even aware that everything they do is being watched and evaluated from 100
different points of view.
But yeah, i know, most questions do contain an intrinsic answer.
"... It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." ..."
"... This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. But it is fact, and the fact that so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic. ..."
"... It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide. Voters' preferences are considered beside the point. Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past. ..."
"... Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine. It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It's our "democratic" tradition – like waging war. ..."
"... What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments in the United States. One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest within the ruling elites. ..."
"... Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state's imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions within the shadow government. Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate. ..."
"... Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission's deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages. ..."
"... Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling assassin who symbolized "diversity," could speak well, and played hoops. ..."
"... Take your pick – heads or tails. Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity. ..."
"... The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render him more controllable. ..."
"... Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the election and before taking office. Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration ..."
"... Trump's fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars ..."
"... This was verboten. And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the Rubicon. That sealed his fate ..."
"... "Only the shallow know themselves," said Oscar Wilde. ..."
"... ...The first step in dealing with this is to combat ignorance and misinformation. There may not be one undeniable truth but we can certainly squash blatant mis-truths. ..."
"... If you read Professor Antony C Sutton's books about Wall Street, the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitlers rise to power, it is possible, as Sutton did, to examine the methodology, ideology and psychology of the string pullers in depth. For exposing them, Hutton was as he said " persecuted but not prosecuted ". ..."
This article was first published on February 21, 2017, one month after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, more than two-and-a
half years ago. What was true then is even truer now, and so I am reprinting it with this brief introduction since I think it describes
what is happening in plain sight today.
Now that years of Russia-gate accusations have finally fallen apart, those forces intent on driving Trump from office have had
to find another pretext. Now it is Ukraine-gate, an issue similar in many ways to Russia-gate in that both were set into motion by
the same forces aligned with the Democratic Party and the CIA-led Obama administration.
It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine
Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in
a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support
of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir
Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected
in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. But it is fact, and the fact that
so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic.
Over the past few years the public has heard even more about the so-called "deep state," only to see its methods of propaganda
become even more perversely cynical in their shallowness.
No one needs to support the vile Trump to understand that the United States is undergoing a fundamental shift wherein tens of
millions of Americans who say they believe in democracy support the activities of gangsters who operate out in the open with their
efforts to oust an elected president.
We have crossed the Rubicon and there will be no going back.
In irony a man annihilates what he posits within one and the same act; he leads us to believe in order not to be believed;
he affirms to deny and denies to affirm; he creates a positive object but it has no being other than its nothingness."
Jean-Paul Sartre
It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide.
Voters' preferences are considered beside the point. Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno
in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past.
Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine. It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing
democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It's our "democratic" tradition – like waging war.
What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments
in the United States. One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces
of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest
within the ruling elites.
Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state's imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions
within the shadow government. Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he
was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate.
Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission's deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George
H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages.
The emcee for the neo-liberal agenda,
Bill Clinton, was rendered politically impotent via the Lewinsky affair, a matter never fully investigated by any media.
Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling
assassin who symbolized "diversity," could speak well, and played hoops. Hit them with the right hand; hit them with the
left. Same coin: Take your pick – heads or tails. Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity.
But surprises happen, and now we have Trump, who is suffering the same fate – albeit at an exponentially faster rate – as his
predecessors that failed to follow the complete script. The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that
run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render
him more controllable.
These efforts, run out of interconnected power centers, including the liberal corporate legal boardrooms that were the backers
of Obama and Hillary Clinton, had no compunction in planning the overthrow of a legally elected president.
Soon they were joined by their conservative conspirators in doing the necessary work of "democracy" – making certain that only
one of their hand-picked and anointed henchmen was at the helm of state. Of course, the intelligence agencies coordinated their efforts
and their media scribes wrote the cover stories. The pink Pussyhats took to the streets. The deep state was working overtime.
Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the
election and before taking office. Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration.
Not his derogatory remarks about minorities, immigrants, or women. Not his promise to cut corporate taxes, support energy companies,
oppose strict environmental standards. Not his slogan to "make America great again." Not his promise to build a "wall" along the
Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. Not his vow to deport immigrants. Not his anti-Muslim pledges. Not his insistence that
NATO countries contribute more to NATO's "defense" of their own countries. Not even his crude rantings and Tweets and his hypersensitive
defensiveness. Not his reality-TV celebrity status, his eponymous golden tower and palatial hotels and sundry real estate holdings.
Not his orange hair and often comical and disturbing demeanor, accentuated by his off the cuff speaking style.
Surely not his massive wealth.
While much of this was viewed with dismay, it was generally acceptable to the power elites who transcend party lines and run the
country. Offensive to hysterical liberal Democrats and traditional Republicans, all this about Trump could be tolerated, if only
he would cooperate on the key issue.
Trump's fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to
end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars.
This was verboten. And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the
Rubicon. That sealed his fate.
Misogyny, racism, support for Republican conservative positions on a host of issues – all fine. Opposing foreign wars, especially
with Russia – not fine.
Now we have a reality-TV president and a reality-TV coup d'etat in prime time. Hidden in plain sight, the deep-state has gone
shallow. What was once covert is now overt. Once it was necessary to blame a coup on a secretive "crazy lone assassin," Lee Harvey
Oswald. But in this "post-modern" society of the spectacle, the manifest is latent; the obvious, non-obvious; what you see you don't
see. Everyone knows those reality-TV shows aren't real, right?
It may seem like it is a coup against Trump in plain sight, but these shows are tricky, aren't they? He's the TV guy. He runs
the show. He's the sorcerer's apprentice. He wants you to believe in the illusion of the obvious. He's the master media manipulator.
You see it but don't believe it because you are so astute, while he is so blatant. He's brought it upon himself. He's bringing himself
down. Everyone who knows, knows that.
I am reminded of being in a movie theatre in 1998, watching The Truman Show, about a guy who slowly "discovers" that he has been
living in the bubble of a television show his whole life. At the end of the film he makes his "escape" through a door in the constructed
dome that is the studio set.
The liberal audience in a very liberal town stood up and applauded Truman's dash to freedom. I was startled since I had never
before heard an audience applaud in a movie theatre – and a standing ovation at that. I wondered what they were applauding. I quickly
realized they were applauding themselves, their knowingness, their insider astuteness that Truman had finally caught on to what they
already thought they knew. Now he would be free like they were. They couldn't be taken in; now he couldn't.
Except, of course, they were applauding an illusion, a film about being trapped in a reality-TV world, a world in which they stood
in that theatre – their world, their frame. Frames within frames. Truman escapes from one fake frame into another – the movie. The
joke was on them. The film had done its magic as its obvious content concealed its deeper truth: the spectator and the spectacle
were wed. McLuhan was here right: the medium was the message.
This is what George Trow in 1980 called "the context of no context."
Candor as concealment, truth as lies, knowingness as stupidity. Making reality unreal in the service of an agenda that is so obvious
it isn't, even as the cognoscenti applaud themselves for being so smart and in the know.
The more we hear about "the deep state" and begin to grasp its definition, the more we will have descended down the rabbit hole.
Soon this "deep state" will be offering courses on what it is, how it operates, and why it must stay hidden while it "exposes" itself.
Right-wing pundit Bill Kristol tweets:
Liberal CIA critic and JFK assassination researcher, Jefferson Morley, after defining the deep state, writes:
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State
are the most – perhaps the only – credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "wrecking ball
presidency."
These are men who ostensibly share different ideologies, yet agree, and state it publically, that the "deep state" should take
out Trump. Both believe, without evidence, that the Russians intervened to try to get Trump elected. Therefore, both no doubt feel
justified in openly espousing a coup d'etat. They match Trump's blatancy with their own. Nothing deep about this.
Liberals and conservatives are now publically allied in demonizing Putin and Russia, and supporting a very dangerous military
confrontation initiated by Obama and championed by the defeated Hillary Clinton. In the past these opposed political factions accepted
that they would rotate their titular leaders into and out of the White House, and whenever the need arose to depose one or the other,
that business would be left to deep state forces to effect in secret and everyone would play dumb.
Now the game has changed. It's all "obvious." The deep state has seemingly gone shallow. Its supporters say so. All the smart
people can see what's happening. Even when what's happening isn't really happening.
"Only the shallow know themselves," said Oscar Wilde.
Edward Curtin Edward Curtin writes, and his
writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public intellectual for the general public, not as a
specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an impossibility and therefore sees all his work as
an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is edwardcurtin.com
Frank Speaker
I remember this excellent piece the first time around. It's indeed even more pertinent today,
Martin Usher
...The first step in dealing with this is to combat ignorance and misinformation. There may not be one undeniable truth but we
can certainly squash blatant mis-truths. This arena isn't just political -- our culture has a habit of reworking our past in a
contemporary image and so subtly warping the lessons of history. Hollywood is a prime offender but then its no surprise to discover
that the original master of propaganda, Goebbels, recognized that entertainment that pushed cultural values was a far more powerful
tool for propaganda than the media that was, and still is, traditionally associated with propaganda.
John Deehan
If you read Professor Antony C Sutton's books about Wall Street, the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitlers rise to power, it is possible,
as Sutton did, to examine the methodology, ideology and psychology of the string pullers in depth. For exposing them, Hutton was
as he said " persecuted but not prosecuted ".
nottheonly1
Sadly though, an old wisdom brings itself into this ludicrous scenery. It also makes the comparison with the Truman show so apt.
You can't fix stupid.
"... Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia (and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes. ..."
The transcript of President Trump's July 25 telephone conversation with Ukraine's recently
elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has ignited the usual anti-Trump bashing in American
political-media circles, even more calls for impeachment, with little, if any, regard for the
national security issues involved. Leave aside that Trump should not have been compelled to
make the transcript public and ask: Which, if any, foreign leaders will now feel free to
conduct personal telephone diplomacy with an American president directly or indirectly, of the
kind that helped end the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, knowing that his or her comments might
become known to domestic political opponents? Consider instead only the following undiscussed
issues:
§ Even if former vice president Joseph Biden, who figured prominently in the
Trump-Zelensky conversation, is not the Democratic nominee, Ukraine is now likely to be a
contested, and poisonous, issue in the 2020 US presidential election. How did the United States
become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is
NATO expansion, as some of us who opposed that folly back in the 1990s warned would be the
case, and not only in Ukraine. The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in
2013 -- 14 resulted in the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally
elected president Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass. All
those fateful events infused the Trump-Zelensky talk, if only between the lines.
§ Russia shares centuries of substantial civilizational values, language, culture,
geography, and intimate family relations with Ukraine. America does not. Why, then, is it
routinely asserted in the US political-media establishment that Ukraine is a "vital US national
interest" and not a vital zone of Russian national security, as by all geopolitical reckoning
it would seem to be? The standard American establishment answer is: because of "Russian
aggression against Ukraine." But the "aggression" cited is Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea
and support for anti-Kiev fighters in the Donbass civil war, both of which came after, not
before, the Maidan crisis, and indeed were a direct result of it. That is, in Moscow's eyes, it
was reacting, not unreasonably, to US-led "aggression." In any event, as opponents of eastward
expansion also warned in the 1990s, NATO has increased no one's security, only diminished
security throughout the region bordering Russia.
§ Which brings us back to the Trump-Zelensky telephone conversation. President Zelensky
ran and won overwhelmingly as a peace-with-Moscow candidate, which is why the roughly $400
million in US military aid to Ukraine, authorized by Congress, figured anomalously in the
conversation. Trump is being sharply criticized for withholding that aid or threatening to do
so, including by Obama partisans. Forgotten, it seems, is that President Obama, despite
considerable bipartisan pressure, steadfastly refused to authorize such military assistance to
Kiev, presumably because it might escalate the Russian-Ukrainian conflict (and Russia, with its
long border with Ukraine, had every escalatory advantage). Instead of baiting Trump on this
issue, we should hope he encourages the new peace talks that Zelensky has undertaken in recent
days with Moscow, which could end the killing in Donbass. (For this, Zelensky is being
threatened by well-armed extreme Ukrainian nationalists, even quasi-fascists. Strong American
support for his negotiations with Moscow may not deter them, but it might.)
§ Finally, but not surprisingly, the shadow of Russiagate is now morphing into
Ukrainegate. Trump is also being sharply criticized for asking Zelensky to cooperate with
Attorney General William Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, even though
the role of
Ukrainian-Americans and Ukraine itself in Russiagate allegations against Trump on behalf of
Hillary Clinton in 2016 is now well-documented
.
We need to know fully the origins of Russiagate, arguably the worst presidential scandal in
American history, and if Ukrainian authorities can contribute to that understanding, they
should be encouraged to do so. As I've argued repeatedly, fervent anti-Trumpers must decide
whether they loathe him more than they care about American and international security. Imaging,
for example, a Cuban missile -- like crisis somewhere in the world today where Washington and
Moscow are militarily eyeball-to-eyeball, directly or through proxies, from the Baltic and the
Black Seas to Syria and Ukraine. Will Trump's presidential legitimacy be sufficient for him to
resolve such an existential crisis peacefully, as President John F. Kennedy did in 1962?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University. A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book War
With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate is available in paperback and
in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in
their sixth year, are available at www.thenation.com.
Trump is an agent of the Deep State, playing good cop to the bad cop Deep State. I have been
saying this since mid April 2017. His multitude of actions belie his promises. Trump is a
quisling to his supporters.
Here is an excellent article that comports with my view of Trump.
I am puzzled why Cohen is permitted to publish in the Nation. Is it due to his marriage
to its publisher or to the magazine's remnant infatuation with the Soviet state? Just
asking.
The whole situation is a rather ironic
Prof. Cohen is certainly one of America's most eminent Russia scholars, and I think that
for decades he was regarded as one of the most left-leaning ones, regularly denounced for his
leftism by all the Neocons and other rightwingers. I remember I used to see him on the PBS
Newshour, sometimes paired with a conservative critic of the Soviets. I'd guess that past
history plus being married to the publisher of The Nation is what gives him his
residual foothold there.
I'd suspect that if someone had told him a couple of decades ago that by the late 2010s
he'd be blacklisted from the MSM and denounced as a "Russian agent," he probably would have
been greatly saddened at the disheartening turn in American society, but not totally shocked.
He probably would have regarded such a scenario as having a 10% possibility.
But if someone would have told him that the people denouncing and blacklisting him would
have been the *liberal Democrats* and some of their most "excitable" elements would be
accusing him of being a "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Russian Agent" he would have thought the
entire country had gone on LSD.
It's sad that our entire country has gone on LSD
The whole situation is actually a perfect parallel to the various past American purges
I've often covered in my articles:
Russia is the excuse for US actions in the Ukraine as it was in the ME.
What is America without a big bad boogeyman like Russia?.
Certainly not a “Superpower’ defending the world.
Without enemies like Russia we would be nothing but big rich country.
And all the Neos and Zios and politicians would have to use Viagra instead of war to squirt
out their poison.
A lot of countries like the Ukraine have gotten a lot of US taxpayer money by
‘standing up to a Russian takeover’….and are laughing all the way to
their bank.
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine’s torturous and famously
corrupt politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in
the target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs
of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes
to mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump
said to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is
the exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption
can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of
other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
It is more than ironic that the Dems (and their like-minded cronies in Big Media) are up in
arms over Trump’s attempt in find ‘dirt’ about Joe Biden when the
‘dirt’ looks and smells like actual corruption. Have laws been broken? Was
Biden selling influence through his son? Stranger things have happened. At the very least,
it looks as though Joe Biden crossed an ethical line. This will likely cost him the
nomination.
Similarly, the news media should–if it was doing its job–pursue leads that
would help find the source behind the missing server and the Fake News that helped justify
the toxic and duplicitous ‘Russiagate’ investigation. But they’d rather
pursue Trump instead. I have never witnessed a more partisan and bloodthirsty Fourth
Estate.
Why is the media so utterly uninterested in finding out who/how the fake
Putin-Trump ‘conspiracy’ was cooked up in the first place? Doesn’t it
make sense the Trump would want to find out more? Justice demands it. False intelligence
can sow chaos and start wars.
Consider, for instance, the manufactured lies (Saddam’s phantom WMD, links to 911,
etc) that were used to justify Zio-America’s annihilation of Iraq. What intelligence
agency cooked up these falsehoods? Who spoon-fed these fairy tales to G.W. Bush and Colin
Powell?
Not only have these questions never been answered, they are seldom even asked! The Deep
State has gone rogue. And Big Media is covering it up.
This whole ridiculous drama may profit the Dem’s in the longer term — that is,
by removing that corrupt, dementia ridden nit-wit Biden from the presidential
competition.
As president, Biden would be a greater sock puppet than even GWB…of course,
“sock puppet” maybe just what the Dem’s want….
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with inevitable
impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
@Ron Unz Thanks to Tucker Carlson’s show, some folks on the left like Cohen, Mate
and Greenwald, are more likely to get air time on Fox News than MSNBC and CNN.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United
States has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly
government to reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect
that the Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally,
this puts Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from
sitcom star to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump’s base; it is the
grotesque, constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that
will return him to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have
always been of better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever
happened to trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to
engineer domestic regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that
away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia
(and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes.
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country’s constitutionally elected president
Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment — none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) — how fucking hypocritical is it
to presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? — none of
it would have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United States
has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly government to
reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect that the
Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally, this puts
Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from sitcom star
to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump's base; it is the grotesque,
constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that will return him
to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have always been of
better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever happened to
trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to engineer domestic
regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
Bolton Opposed Ukraine Investigations; Called Giuliani "A Hand Grenade" by
Tyler Durden Tue, 10/15/2019 - 12:25 0 SHARES
Former national security adviser John Bolton was 'so alarmed' by efforts to encourage Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and 2016
election meddling that he told an aide, Fiona Hill, to alert White House lawyers, according to the
New York Times
.
When Hill confronted Sondland, he told her that he was 'in charge' of Ukraine, "a moment she compared to Secretary of State Alexander
M. Haig Jr.'s declaration that he was in charge after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, according to those who heard the testimony,"
according to the Times.
Hill says she asked Sondland on whose authority he was in charge of Ukraine, to which he replied 'the president.' She would later
leave her post shortly before a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president which is currently at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, the Times also notes that "House Democrats widened their net in the fast-paced inquiry by summoning Michael McKinley,
a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who abruptly resigned last week, to testify Wednesday."
Career diplomats have expressed outrage at the unceremonious
removal of Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch from Ukraine after she came under attack by Mr. Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and
two associates who have since been arrested on charges of campaign violations.
Three other Trump admin officials are scheduled to speak with House investigators this week, including Sondland - who is now set
to appear on Thursday. On Tuesday, deputy assistant secretary of state George Kent will testify, while on Friday, Laura K. Cooper
- a a deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia policy, will speak with lawmakers as well.
Looks like we have our whistleblower. My only question is, how does one whistle with such a bristly moustache draping their
hairlip?
So now we have Mr. Neocon and Mr. Liddle Kidz conjugating as the strangest of bedfellows? How will this play to their respective
bases? Are we to assume these people think this nations top law enforcement agent (POTUS) is to abdicate his duties therewith
just because the criminal is (at least according to our two tiered justice system) supposed to be beyond reproach?
Mr. Bolton, bright and determined as he is, has hitched his wagon to mad mare galloping full tilt over a precipice.
Looking for a return of uranium one to the headlines soon. In due time we will stich this Russia/Ukraine narrative back together
from a patchwork of facts. You traitors are fucked...royally fucked...and you know it.
So, Mr bolton, explain to us in simple terms how you appraise America's security and her related interests. Your camp is in
eclipse.
John Bolton:
"I was appauled...just flabbergasted...that the president was concerned that our intelligence apparatus was politicized to
the extent that its highest echelons were arrayed in an attempt to subvert a lawful and legitimate election. Never mind that six
other nations were tasked with abetting this treasonous plot...this is an outrage!!! The whole point of intelligence agencies
is to skirt the law with impunity, and once we (the unelected permanent breacracy) tell one of our minions like Biden or Hillary
that they're permanently immune from prosecution, we can't have some earnest pact of Patriots running around demanding law and
order."
What a sorry bunch of cretians.
We were so close...so close...to losing it all. But since the enemy is making clear we're playing zero sum, we're going to
end up with everything.
Brace yourself, California. If I were you, I'd study the legal framework of Reconstruction. Your plight will be of a kind.
Your state has been engaged in a systematic attempt to overthrow the government. Your leaders will be appointed for a generation
after this all comes out. Don't look to Beijing to save you...they kinda have their hands full.
So, I guess Bolton is no longer collecting free money like Hunter Biden was. I get it now how all these politicians have kids
overseas and open foreign corporations which our tax money goes in to by way of cutting deals overseas public officials to line
their pockets with our money. This how they get into government poor and become very rich! Giuliani is pointing this fact out
to the public with Trump and the swamp HATES IT!
The public now knows how these corrupt PUBLIC OFFICIALS in America have been fleecing the tax payers. This is a major hit on
the swamp.
Trump & Giuliani we're behind you thank you for showing us how the swamp has been ******* us for all these years.
Understand that the reason Schitt head won't allow public hearings is because the former Ambassador to Ukraine--Volker, shot
this whole **** fest down when he testified. There is no "there" there.
Bolton and the others are crying because of Trump's pull out. The left jumped on the war bandwagon under Billary a long time
ago. Necons work both parties.
If Bolton dislikes Guiliani that's the best endorsement of Rudy I can imagine. Bolton is a complete warmongering traitor who,
like McShitstain, desires a nice case of brain cancer.
Go Rudy, expose the corrupt Demonrats! We deplorables love human hand grenades. That's why we elected the Donald, and you apparently
are the perfect lawyer for our great God emperor.
"Schiff simply does not have the gravitas that a weighty procedure such as impeachment requires," Biggs wrote in an opinion
piece for Fox News. "He has repeatedly shown incredibly poor judgment. He has persistently and consistently demonstrated that
he has such a tremendous bias and animus against Trump that he will say anything and accept any proffer of even bogus evidence
to try to remove the president from office."
When does the monkey cage's screeching become a "seditious conspiracy"?
Treason, insurrection, sedition etc come under 18 USC Ch 115. As I learned this AM the
statute the Rosenbergs were tried and executed under.
I suggest the media, Comey, Schiff, Pelosi cabal (their rumorblower tools) are running
a Seditious Conspiracy (not protected in 5 USC 2302 on whistleblower protection.
I suspect Durham and Barr look in to 18 USC Ch. 115 for the indictments they will deliver
soon.
The running sedition to oust Trump demands prosecution.
In regard to the kerfuffle to unseat Trump these past three years, I quote Murrow from a TV
documentary on Joseph McCarthy:
"the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior Senator
from Wisconsin (in this case the media DNC house of representatives monkey cage) has stepped
over it repeatedly."
"... We also know that Ukraine played heavily in this conspiracy and still does and ANY legitimate investigation into the origins of this criminal adventure MUST involve the Ukraine. ..."
"... We also know that those implicated in this unholy adventure are and have been dragging their feet on any investigation and have actually worked to deter it. ..."
I have no problem with criticism, but what we see mostly here is name calling and
disparagement as a substitute for reasoned debate. Let us simply COMPARE Trump's actions with
any other president on a level field. Now few want to do that. They say Obama, Bush or
Clinton are irrelevant, but they are NOT if we are talking of impeachment, of FAILURE to
uphold the responsibilities of office. Progressives want Trump IMPEACHED and removed from
office for supposedly investigating a political rival and are going so far as to say it is
illegitimate because it wasn't an official state action, WHEREAS Obama used ALL of the powers
of government to investigate and KNOWINGLY, FALSELY and PUBLICLY ACCUSE Trump of heinous
crimes.
Further, Trump is accused of withholding money from Ukraine to pressure them to come up
with FALSE evidence against Biden, when there is NO proof that he either pressured them or
that ANY FALSE evidence was generated. AS with the leaked democrat emails, somehow the
content was deemed irrelevant due to the supposed means of acquisition.
What we know is, that Russia-gate was a scam perpetrated from the highest levels of
government and enabled by the media.
We also know that Ukraine played heavily in this conspiracy and still does and ANY
legitimate investigation into the origins of this criminal adventure MUST involve the
Ukraine.
We also know that those implicated in this unholy adventure are and have been dragging
their feet on any investigation and have actually worked to deter it.
What is transparent is that Trump is trying to uncover what really happened in the last
election and there are considerable forces trying to stop him. Clear for anyone to see. and
many see it clearly, and with great fear in their hearts.
If the coup has less than 70% they have no more than the CNN crowd.
Equating Ukraine to US security is false and not selling the coup. Bashing Trump for going
after his corrupt opponent Biden is not selling!
Crooked media coverage fools 50% of the people all the time, especially when 35% of the
are duped by Pelosi, Schumer and Biden usually they are suffering from Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Democrats; shady neocons equate not arming the corrupt regime in Ukraine to "security".
Siding with corruption is a huge threat to US security!
Many of us who turn down polls will never again vote for a democrat.
"Equating Ukraine to US security is false and not selling the coup. "
I would say more: calling foreign interference of Ukraine in the US election in case of
Biden is an insult to the intelligence of US voters.
This is the level of chutzpah almost equal to claiming orphan privileges after killing
both parents.
After 2014 Ukraine with its marionette government 'midwifed' by Ms. Nuland (Google
Nulandgate) is a colony for all practical purposes; the country governed directly from the US
embassy ( Washington Obcom as locals sarcastically call it as it performs functions similar
to the CPSU offices in the past).
For all key matters it's Washington who decided that policy Ukraine will pursue. That
decides the issue of interference once and forever. Under Obama Ukraine participated in
anti-Trump coup d'état. How this marionette government can pursue independent policy
as for the USA is beyond my understanding of the situation.
What is funny is that Biden was Obama's viceroy in Ukraine all that time up to election of
Trump. He also was the best friend on Yanukovich and his political mentor (that's probably
why Yanukovich ended his career is such a way; which such friends, who needs the enemies
;-)
The main feature of the democrat coup the foundation of the party is corruption.
This aspect of the party demanded that Clinton run against Trump, rather than on any
policy. Shew hid the neocon militarism, attacking Trump deplorables as isolationists.
The Ukraine connection is money for family members of democrat elites. A most corrupt
regime the image of not supporting the corruption is a democrat defined national security
issue!
The US ust sell Javelin tank busters to Ukraine so they can keep their Russian sectors and
plunder them to pay Biden's (Romney kid, Pelosi kid) son.
This coup is about plunder and it is not Trump whose plunder is at stake!
CNN journalists are "soldier of the Party" in best Bolshevik's style...All this noise about
Biden is just trivializing the fact that he is a war criminal. And in this sense replacing him
with his son on the ballot would be an improvement ;-)
Of note, CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez says that former VP Joe Biden has a
problem.
" Now I'll tell you this. Joe Biden has a problem. Because his son was trading in his name.
It looks bad. It smells bad. It's not illegal. Nothing is illegal about it How do you go and
say that Donald Trump is the person? Get him out of here, and convict him, when your son is
doing the same shit."
The big question that I want to know is does this even embarrass the so called CNN
"journalists"? Are they ashamed at what they have become or are they just actors playing a
part and completely disconnected from journalism altogether?
Here it is folks, the final arbiters of truth in our society discussing how to ********
America and blow smoke up the *** of their cult followers and tell them it is in information.
At this point I look at anyone who parrots the CNN narrative as a zombie, some people won't
be able to be saved.
Hunter Biden's jobs as pay for play for his daddy's efforts in congress go back a long
ways. Burisma and China were just two of many:
Although Trump repeatedly has hammered Hunter Biden's ties to China and Ukraine, the
latest cloud of suspicion came as Republicans pointed to resurfaced 2008 reports in The
New York Times and The American
Spectator . The articles, written as Barack Obama and John McCain vied for the White
House, found that Hunter Biden received consulting fees from the financial services company
MBNA from 2001 to 2005 -- while his father, then a senator, was pushing successfully for
legislation that would make it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection.
The precise amount of the payments was unclear, but a company official once said Hunter
Biden was receiving at least a $100,000 per year retainer, The Times reported. Hunter Biden
previously had been an executive at MBNA beginning in 1996, but the consulting fees came
years after his departure from the company as a full-time employee.
Aides to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama at the time denied that any lobbying
had occurred, and insisted the payments were proper.
Yet another female neocon hawk of the mold of Samantha Power. Hillary have found not only
Nuland, but several of them ;-) She denied that Nulandgate create a civil war in Ukraine to
advance the US geopolitical goals. She also denied influencing Ukrainian leadership, while in
reality Ukraine now is governed from the US embassy (which is sometimes called by locals called
Washington Obcom) . Such a hypocrite.
As for "do not prosecute" list -- do not believe anything government officials say
until it is officially denied.
And that EuroMaydan actually promote corruption to the level unheard during Yanukovich tenure
but with different players.
Notable quotes:
"... creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and profit. ..."
"... the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ..."
"... the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin ..."
"... As Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false ..."
"... Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else. ..."
"... I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me. ..."
"... With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. ..."
The Revolution of Dignity, and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption, forced the
new Ukrainian government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated
that country's political and economic systems. We have long understood that strong
anti-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in Ukraine; now there was a
window of opportunity to do just that.
Why is this important? Put simply: anti-corruption efforts serve Ukraine's interests. They
serve ours as well. Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy, while an honest and
accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukraine partnership more reliable and more
valuable to the U.S. A level playing field in this strategically located country -- one with a
European landmass exceeded only by Russia and with one of the largest populations in Europe --
creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and
profit. Corruption is a security issue as well, because corrupt officials are vulnerable
to Moscow. In short, it is in our national security interest to help Ukraine transform into a
country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check.
Two Wars
But change takes time, and the aspiration to instill rule-of-law values has still not been
fulfilled. Since 2014, Ukraine has been at war, not just with Russia, but within itself, as
political and economic forces compete to determine what kind of country Ukraine will become:
the same old, oligarch-dominated Ukraine where corruption is not just prevalent, but is the
system? Or the country that Ukrainians demanded in the Revolution of Dignity -- a country where
rule of law is the system, corruption is tamed, and people are treated equally and according to
the law? During the 2019 presidential elections, the Ukrainian people answered that question
once again. Angered by insufficient progress in the fight against corruption, Ukrainian voters
overwhelmingly elected a man who said that ending corruption would be his number one priority.
The transition, however, created fear among the political elite, setting the stage for some of
the issues I expect we will be discussing today.
... ... ...
I arrived in Ukraine on August 22, 2016 and left Ukraine permanently on May 20, 2019.
Several of the events with which you may be concerned occurred before I was even in
country.
Here are just a few:
the release of the so-called "Black Ledger" and Mr. Manafort's subsequent resignation
from the Trump campaign;
the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the
investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ; and
the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin .
Several other events occurred after I was recalled from Ukraine. These include:
President Trump's July 25 call with President Zelenskiy;
All of the discussions surrounding that phone call; and
Any discussions surrounding the reported delay of security assistance to Ukraine in
Summer 2019.
During my Tenure in Ukraine
As for events during my tenure in Ukraine, I want to categorically state that I have
never myself or through others, directly or indirectly, ever directed, suggested, or in any
other way asked for any government or government official in Ukraine (or elsewhere) to
refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. As Mr. Lutsenko, the former
Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or
disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false -- a story that Mr. Lutsenko,
himself, has since retracted.
Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard
the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's
orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such
a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else.
Next, the Obama administration did not ask me to help the Clinton campaign or harm the
Trump campaign, nor would I have taken any such steps if they had.
I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations
with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course
of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or
indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.
With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total
of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's
motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr.
Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our
anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.
"... I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single ******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. ..."
"... It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as CIA head wasn't he? ..."
"... CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?! ..."
It's both pathetic and laughable that Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics are
referring to the CIA agent who turned in Trump for his telephone call with Ukraine President
Volodymyr Zelensky as a "whistleblower."
It's pathetic because it denigrates real whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou,
Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, and William Binney. Those people are the courageous ones. They
risked their careers, their liberty, and even their lives to expose criminal wrongdoing within
the national-security state agencies they were working for.
That's not what that supposed CIA agent did when he filed his complaint against Trump. He
didn't blow the whistle on his agency, the CIA, by exposing some secret dark-side practices,
such as MK-Ultra drug experimentation on unsuspecting Americans, secret assassinations of
Americans, secret assets within the mainstream press, or secret destruction of torture
videotapes of incarcerated inmates at a top-secret CIA prison center in some former Soviet-bloc
country.
If he had done that, the CIA would have come after him with all guns blaring, just as the
national-security establishment has gone after Snowden and those other genuine whistleblowers.
In fact, that's how one can usually identify a genuine whistleblower. That's obviously not
happening here. Instead, the national-security establishment is hailing this "whistleblower" as
being a brave and courageous hero for disclosing supposed wrongdoing by Trump, not by the
CIA.
That anti-Trump CIA agent isn't a whistleblower at all. Instead, he's nothing more than a
spy and a snitch. He is obviously a spy. After all, he works for the CIA, the premier spy
agency in the world. And by turning in Trump in an obvious attempt to get him into trouble,
he's also obviously a snitch.
A "gotcha" moment
In fact, the entire episode has a "gotcha" feeling to it. For almost three years, Americans
have been made to suffer under a constant stream of speeches, commentaries, op-eds, and
editorials about what Trump rightly called the "collusion delusion" theory. Democrats, the
mainstream press, and Trump critics were 100 percent certain that their real-life hero Robert
Mueller, the special counsel, was going to find evidence that Trump conspired with Russian
officials to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful place as president of the United States. They
had impeachment plans set in place, ready to go.
And then Mueller dashed their hopes. His report disclosed that the collusion delusion was
the biggest conspiracy theory in U.S. history, one openly promoted by Democrats, the mainstream
press, and Trump critics on a daily basis for almost three years.
All they needed and wanted was an opportunity -- any opportunity -- to apply their
impeachment process to another set of a facts. Fortunately for them, Trump himself gave them
that opportunity. That supposed CIA agent was ready with a "gotcha!" and proceeded to snitch on
Trump with his "whistleblower" complaint.
Trump is obviously a smart man, both businesswise and politically. But to make that
telephone call to Zelensky and request him to investigate Joe Biden, while holding up a foreign
aid package to Ukraine, immediately after being exonerated by Mueller of the collusion delusion
allegation, was about the dumbest thing he could do. How could he not realize that his enemies
would be looking for any opportunity to set their impeachment process into motion against
him?
The likely explanation lies with arrogance and hubris. After Trump got his exoneration on
the collusion delusion accusation, he figured that he was now all-powerful and could do
whatever he wanted. The fact that he was, at the same time, exercising such dictatorial powers
as raising tariffs, starting trade wars, building his Berlin Wall along the border, and
imposing sanctions and embargoes, all without the consent of Congress, was also making him feel
omnipotent and untouchable. His admiration for foreign dictators no doubt filled his mind with
the same sense of totalitarian, untouchable power.
That's what likely caused Trump to give his enemies the "gotcha" episode for which they were
clearly thirsting. Trump turned out to be his own very worst enemy.
National security
enmity toward Trump
Despite his campaign rhetoric against "endless wars," Trump has kept U.S. troops in
Afghanistan and the Middle East, where they have continued to kill, die, and wreak massive
destruction. He has also authorized the continuation of the Pentagon's and CIA's assassination
program. He has also continued the Pentagon's and CIA's indefinite detention and torture center
at Guantanamo Bay. He has done nothing to rein in the NSA and its secret surveillance schemes.
The fact is that Trump's term in office, despite his "America First" rhetoric, has proven to be
nothing more than a continuation of the Bush-Obama administrations.
That's what he should be impeached for, but unfortunately his critics feel that those high
crimes don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
But it's also true that Trump has failed to demonstrate the complete deference to authority
of the national-security establishment that Hillary Clinton and other Washington, D.C.,
political elites have. Trump's failure to bend the knee to the national-security establishment
made him suspect from the very beginning, especially since the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and
the FBI were certain that their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, was going to be the new
president.
Thus, there has been a war between Trump and the national-security establishment from even
before he was elected and especially after he was elected. In a remarkable moment of candor and
honesty, Congressman Charles Schumer, commenting on the war between Trump and the
national-security establishment, stated, "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence
community -- they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
One way of getting back at Trump is, of course, through assassination, a power that the
Supreme Court has confirmed that the national-security state wields against American citizens,
so long it is necessary to protect "national security."
Another way of getting back at Trump is smear tactics through the use of assets within the
mainstream press. The CIA's Operation Mockingbird comes to mind.
Coup through
impeachment
And other option to get back at Trump is through impeachment and conviction, especially
through assets within Congress. But before any collusion-delusion proponent cries "conspiracy
theory," recall that President Eisenhower warned Americans in his 1961 Farewell Address about
the threat that the "military-industrial complex" poses to the liberties and democratic
processes of the American people. Actually, Ike planned to use the term
"military-industrial-congressional complex" but changed his mind at the last minute. He was
referring to the intimate, integrated relationship between members of Congress and the
Pentagon, CIA, and NSA. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Eisenhower is not perceived to
be a "conspiracy theorist," the term that the CIA popularized to keep people from examining the
Kennedy assassination too closely.
Speaking of the Kennedy assassination, early in his administration Trump announced that he
intended to comply with the deadline for releasing the CIA's long-secret records relating to
the assassination. At the very last minute, Trump folded and granted the CIA's request for
continued secrecy.
Why did Trump do that?
One possibility is that he became convinced that "national security" would be jeopardized if
the American people were to see the CIA's long-secret JFK assassination records.
Another possibility is that he struck some sort of secret negotiated deal with the CIA.
A third possibility is that he figured that if he would ingratiate himself with the CIA in
the hope that they would leave him alone. If that was the case, Trump might well go down as one
of the most naïve presidents in history.
I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single
******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham
sandwich if they want to.
If we have no rule of law anymore, then **** it. It's time to abolish our entire
government and start from scratch under the Declaration of Independence.
Maybe Trump was naive not to realize how much the entrenched elites were against him
and what he represented.
And maybe the entrenched elites don't realize how deeply so many of us deplorables hate
them . Let's see how D.C. -- the Senate and the Supreme Court -- defuse the coming Civil
War. Because the House and the Executive have already staked out their positions ... AND SO
HAVE WE.
Fraud Trump ( President "Gun Control" ) and the CIA are best buddy's!!!
It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as
CIA head wasn't he?
They ( Along with their democrat/republican Comrades ), are working together for their
Rothschild Israeli/NWO masters, to Try and undermine the American people and Enslave the
world!
Please don't fall for this phony Good Cop/Bad Cop "Theatre"...Fraud Trump and the CIA are
one and the same!
CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production
made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies
echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so
gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?!
Here is as awkward question: why are we not allowed to simply ask what is truly ailing us
and why in many countries the mere doubt or questioning will lend one in prison. What kinds
of "truths" demand prison time for simply asking questions?!
We've lost WWII. Western societies are no longer exceptional, if they were so to begin
with (the traitors made sure of that). We must reform and address the one true problem at our
midst: Jewish tyranny!
A man, unlike ANY politician since dared to put the interests of his people ahead of
anything else. Whether you agree or disagree, have an open mind to revisit this case; perhaps
you will now see what you missed previously.
Left and Right is nothing but Reality TV for the masses. They are two sides of a coin, in
the end its still one coin!
They are funded on both sides from the same people, one side is funded openly the other is
through NGOs to hide the "investment" donation.
To believe they are truly after Trump is BS, the "left" wants in, by getting him "out" but
the people funding it all are just using the "left" as muscle to keep Trump "inline" doing
their bidding! If it was a Democrat they couldn't keep inline they would do the same thing,
in the end its all just another way to keep society divided so they can further control us
and strip away more freedom,power and money/assets and we agree to give it away when asked
under the BS lie of protecting us from some made up enemy/threat, and we fall for it every
time like a mouse to glue paper!
If Snowden and Assange showing us how bad we have been betrayed didn't wake us up to
rebel, nothing will!
It would be a whole different story if the info they released was being debated for truth,
but they have been openly confirmed on everything they released and we still go along with
this DeepState monster that has basically imprisoned us all, some with bars/cells some
without but all imprisoned and lacking Free will/freedom we as a nation are suppose to
have!
The fact that we still surrender more and more of this freedom daily without any outcry
from the population is mindboggling. How bad does it have to get to get some fight out of the
populas? It is even more worrying that there is no MSM that will independently report what we
know as fact so we can unite.
This is coup d'état, no question about it. What is the level of connection of Adam
Schiff and the CIA?
Notable quotes:
"... Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that lasted just a few minutes? ..."
"... Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references? ..."
"... What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate? ..."
1. Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and
President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that
lasted just a few minutes?
2. Why did the "whistleblower" wait 18 days to file the complaint after describing the call
as "frightening" in their memo?
3. Why and when did the "whistleblower" communicate with Rep Adam Schiff's staff before
filing the complaint?
4. Why did the "whistleblower" hide from the ICIG that they met with Rep Adam Schiff's staff
by not checking the box on the whistleblower form indicating they had spoken to Congress?
5. Why didn't Rep Adam Schiff tell us his staff had met with the "whistleblower?"
6. Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead
of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references?
7. Why is Rep Adam Schiff holding hearings, depositions, and interviews behind closed
doors?
8. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff release the transcripts of these interviews, instead of leaking
cherry-picked information that fits his narrative?
9. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff take questions from the press after these interviews, like
Republicans have done?
10. Why does Speaker Pelosi think we need to “strike while the iron is hot,”
instead of taking time for serious and thorough investigative fact-finding?
11. Why is Speaker Pelosi scared to have a vote to open an official impeachment inquiry like
it’s been done every other time?
12. Why do Democrats keep making up the rules as they go along, instead of following a fair
process?
13. What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential
candidate?
14. Why do Democrats and the media keep falsely claiming President Trump pressured Ukraine?
President Zelensky has repeatedly said that he wasn't pushed.
15. Why don't Democrats trust the American people to choose the President? The election is
less than 13 months away.
16. Why won't Democrats focus on helping the country, instead of attacking the President
with this unfair and partisan process?
17. Why won't the media ask these questions to Rep Adam Schiff or Speaker Pelosi?
Dems not troubled by truth. Their mind control media believes in itself as the new God
that the morons bow down to and will abandon their children for. Their brainwashed radical
left will trample their own mothers to get into a fight to the death for their demonic cause
of grabbing power for the furtherance of their selfish sponsors.
This is the train of darkness that unwittingly delivered the first people POTUS reaction.
The train drivers are very powerful and are long established as the puppet masters. They are
scheming 24/7 on multiple fronts to distract their enemy called democracy and further embed
themselves within every internal organ and nerve fiber. But they are not immutable.
The capture of democracy is a goal that they must achieve. The attack is obviously
coordinated and multi-faceted. The tool of brainwashing will target the children, like the
Nazi program called "Hitler Youth" but with a neolibic dogma.
One man stands alone against the deep state and its swamp and media and mind control and
infiltration. Can he trust anyone to watch his back?
This is really a travesty. Every day we hear about this. The President is being tried by
the press - with only one side being heard. How the hell is this fair?
to most on this thread democrats want to take all they can via taxes, then borrow what
they can't raise in taxes, democrats will cause widespread poverty, sickness and will sponsor
**** educational standards, encourage perversion and pay minorities taxpayer dollars to buy
their votes - even though minorities are no more special than any social grouping (other than
the perverts in the lbGTQ++ community who are special in a mentally retarded way) democrats
sponsor criminal behavior by refusing to punish it and so on and so forth,
trump at least promotes reward for effort, by giving back some taxes to individuals and
makes American corporate tax rates consistent with global corporate tax rates, has shitcanned
the stealth taxes on healthy people via Obamacare, and inspires people left behind by the
constant march to socialism that the US has endured for the last fifty years (via welfare
benefits, scholastic indoctrination, social housing programs, medicare/medicaid programs that
taxpayers could have got for half the price they paid - and half the debt liabilities run up
in trust funds.
so..has trump got the federal government completely out of peoples lives? no, but he at
least wants taxes on the country to 18% of GDP and not the 40% targeted by the howler monkeys
on the left.
it is not a choice of two equal evils. it is the choice between YOU paying 18% of your
income or 40%.
The term "centrist" is replaced by a more appropriate term "neoliberal oligarchy"
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps. ..."
"... So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place. ..."
"... For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path. ..."
"... In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained. ..."
"... Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change. ..."
"... These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy. ..."
"... "For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely. ..."
"... how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? ..."
"... Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked. ..."
"... To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so. ..."
"... Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too. ..."
"... Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars. ..."
"... Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time. ..."
"... I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid. ..."
"... At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems. ..."
There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they
think.
From the time of Donald Trump's election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At
long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed
fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will
not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual
certainty.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of
Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the
Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back
down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. TheNew York
Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, "The stage is set, the
destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God." Of
course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
That it now concerns a "
Mafia-like shakedown " orchestrated by one of Wilson's successors tells us something about
the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a
story of ascent.
The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The
rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of
Trump's election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered
by Bill Clinton's "
sexual relations " will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between
Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this
story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go
essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office,
gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure will
proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will
waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion --
larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by
climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us
preoccupied with America's role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding
what's still called " national
security " will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and
pointless.
By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield.
Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of
possibilities awaiting the nation.
The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a
public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having
worn off, being president can't be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How
much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a
storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the "deals" an ex-president could
make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he's bestowed
favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and
lucrative) way out.
The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient
number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and "do the right thing," joining
with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing.
In the Washington of that classic 20th-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart
holding
forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery,
this might have happened. In the real Washington of "Moscow Mitch"
McConnell , think again.
The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that
McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that
turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president's
loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people
streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial
loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump
loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless
that base were to flip, don't expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.
That leaves outcome No. 4, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the
Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of
his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source
of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a
colossal waste of time and blather.
Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection
chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For
that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly,
suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as
punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay
in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so
that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.
Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a
badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress's
approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public,
a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.
Restoration Not Removal
So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more
favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being
pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of
impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with
Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is
to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House
in the first place.
Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton
declared Trump to be an "illegitimate president." Implicit in her charge is the conviction
-- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president.
People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials
like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true
meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump
doesn't deserve to be president and never did.
For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of
impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed
path.
In a
recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point:
Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close
to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more
important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking
repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as
foreordained.
Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political
mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal
Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much)
change.
These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as
defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating
on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a
global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they
define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees
from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to
believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and
privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American
political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore
that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.
"For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying
a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary
precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo
interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his
mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. military's "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War, as
broadcast on CNN.
For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice.
Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for
an über -qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and
unprincipled political novice in 2016.
Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you
political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump's antics regarding Ukraine may even
meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal
oligarchy" who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed).
Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008.
As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which
Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.
Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental
hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who
sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include
thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to
struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured ;
millions displaced ;
trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case
even formed
inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it
has yet to recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the
administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the
banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a
direct result of
the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment
shot up to 10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock
market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be
asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has
been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq
War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the
question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.
Sen. Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of
the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, which was
repealed in 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)
To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship
on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie.
Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed,
apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden
worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That
the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another
cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency
somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse
"to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war
to economic inequality." Just so.
What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming
months, don't expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of
addressing such questions.
Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed
match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's
what Hillary thought too.
Now the Republicans who lost their party to Trump think they can take it back with
somebody even more lame than Jeb, if only they could find someone, anyone, to run on that
non-plan.
Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any
alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they
want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four
times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars.
Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no
better than last time.
LJ , October 9, 2019 at 17:01
Well, yeah but I recall that what won Trump the Republican Nomination was first and
foremost his stance on Immigration. This issue is what separated him from the herd of
candidates . None of them had the courage or the desire to go against Governmental Groupthink
on Immigration. All he then had to do was get on top of low energy Jeb Bush and the road was
clear. He got the base on his side on this issue and on his repeated statement that he wished
to normalize relations with Russia . He won the nomination easily. The base is still on his
side on these issues but Governmental Groupthink has prevailed in the House, the Senate, the
Intelligence Services and the Federal Courts. Funny how nobody in the Beltway, especially not
in media, is brave enough to admit that the entire Neoconservative scheme has been a disaster
and that of course we should get out of Syria . Nor can anyone recall the corruption and
warmongering that now seem that seems endemic to the Democratic Party. Of course Trump has to
wear goat's horns. "Off with his head".
Drew Hunkins , October 9, 2019 at 16:00
I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute
worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the
price that's going to have to be paid.
At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental
bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now
established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to
concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable
Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight
of hand there corporate Dems.
Of course, the corporate Dems would rather lose to Trump than win with a
progressive-populist like Bernie. After all, a Bernie win would mean an end to a lot of
careerism and cushy positions within the establishment political scene in Washington and
throughout the country.
Now we even have the destroyer of Libya mulling another run for the presidency.
Forget about having a job the next day and forget about the 25% interest on your credit
card or that half your income is going toward your rent or mortgage, or that you barely see
your kids b/c of the 60 hour work week, just worry about women lawyers being able to make
partner at the firm, and trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they wish and male
athletes being able to compete against women based on genitalia (no, wait, I'm confused
now).
Either class politics and class warfare comes front and center or we witness a burgeoning
neo-fascist movement in our midst. It's that simple, something has got to give!
In one of the exchanges with US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, dated September 9, Taylor
spells out what would become the Democrats' argument for impeachment:
As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help
with a political campaign.
It's time Dems try to bring in Ambassador Bill Taylor.
Taylor *twice* texts about a direct quid pro quo between military aid and Ukraine helping Trump
rig our election.
There's a *reason* Taylor thought there was a quid pro quo.
Sondland's admonishment of Taylor –
"I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's
intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind."
– is somehow being
held up as an admission of wrongdoing, along with his request for a phone call instead of continued
texts.
Just like that, all of a sudden, the controversy about the so-called
"whistleblower"
who
may have colluded with House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California) before filing his
complaint – based on hearsay – is declared
"irrelevant"
and the texts are held up as the Holy
Grail of impeachment proceedings.
At this point, whistleblower complaint is irrelevant. Transcript of
Trump-Zelensky call and texts from Volker, Sondland et al released yesterday is all one needs to
show clearly Trump misconduct .
It's curious how the same treatment was not given a few months ago to the anti-Trump text messages
of FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, when the entire media establishment twisted itself into
pretzels to explain that when Strzok said
"we'll stop"
Trump from becoming president what he
really meant, you see, was something totally innocuous and not sinister at all
.
House Republicans have blasted the diplomatic texts as "cherry-picked" by the other party, and
argued that the closed-doors testimony of Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine who
participated in the exchanges, painted a completely different picture.
We noticed the original tweet was deleted after we posted our fact check.
Reading the
transcript
of Volker's opening statement, obtained and published Friday by investigative reporter
John Solomon and the Federalist, seems to back that claim. Volker testified he did not bring up the issue
of a hold on military aid with the Ukrainians until late August, when it was first reported in the media
– and long after the Trump-Zelensky phone call. Nor was he made aware of any reference to former VP Joe
Biden or his son until the transcript of the call was released on September 25.
Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani
"stressed that all he wanted to see was for Ukraine to investigate
what happened in the past and apply its own laws,"
Volker also explained.
On the issue of holding up military aid, Volker admits he was conducting his own policy, in line with
the consensus in Washington, rather than obeying the president who appointed him:
"I became aware of a hold on Congressional Notifications about proceeding with that assistance on
July 18, 2019, and immediately tried to weigh in to reverse that position I was confident that this
position would indeed be reversed in the end, because the provision of such assistance was uniformly
supported at State, Defense, NSC, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the expert community in
Washington."
Yet the most overlooked text in the batch is from Volker to Giuliani, dated August 9, asking for a
phone call "to make sure I advise Z [Zelensky] correctly as to what he should be saying."
To the impeachment-bent Democrats, what's objectionable here is the substance of Volker's instruction
– namely, the alleged
"election meddling"
in investigating the Bidens (and Ukraine's role in
2016, which they are eager never to mention). What should be objectionable is the fact that a US diplomat
is stage-whispering to the freshly elected president of an ostensibly sovereign country. Not that it
would be the first time.
Way back in
April 2016
, President Barack Obama argued that the US stood for the
"principle that nations like
Ukraine have the right to choose their own destiny."
Left unsaid was that such choices would only be
honored if they aligned with US beliefs and objectives – and subject to
"color revolution"
and
regime change if not, which is just what happened in February 2014 in Kiev.
The fact that neither Democrats and Republicans are raising that issue with Volker's testimony and the
texts just goes to show that neither have a problem with the US acting like an empire, and Ukraine being
its vassal. That is what is truly damning about all of this, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
President Donald Trump has continued to hammer Democratic efforts to impeach him, this time
accusing the party of "continuing to interfere in the 2016 election" as well. "Not only are
the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are continuing to interfere
in the 2016 Election," Trump tweeted on Saturday. "They must be stopped!"
Not only are the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are
continuing to interfere in the 2016 Election. They must be stopped!
The president has called the impeachment investigation against him – which centers
around allegations he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into reopening a
corruption investigation into Joe Biden's son Hunter's business dealings in the country –
"fake" and a "phony witch hunt," designed to oust him before the 2020 race.
Rather than suggesting that Democrats were traveling through time to meddle in the 2016
election all over again, the second half of the president's tweet refers to his belief that the
impeachment drive was concocted to distract from Attorney General William Barr's efforts to
investigate the origins of the counterintelligence probe against his campaign.
Trump has accused the US' intelligence agencies of "spying" on his 2016 campaign and
obtaining a FISA wiretapping warrant under false pretenses. Barr's office received a draft
report of this alleged FISA abuse from the Justice Department's Inspector General two weeks
ago.
Several top Democrats have released text messages between US officials which they claim
expose the Trump administration's drive to 'coerce' the Ukrainian government to target Joe
Biden, for purely political reasons obviously. The Democratic chairs of the House Intelligence,
Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees released the messages in a letter to fellow
representatives late Thursday.
The
letter features over a dozen text messages between US diplomats – including former
Trump administration envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Ukrainian embassy official Bill Taylor, EU
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, as well as the president's personal attorney Rudy
Giuliani.
"The president and his aides are engaging in a campaign of misinformation and
misdirection in an attempt to normalize the act of soliciting foreign power to interfere in our
elections," the chairmen wrote.
Even more astonishing, he is now openly and publicly asking another foreign power
– China – to launch its own sham investigation against the Bidens to further his
own political aims.
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would launch an impeachment inquiry over
the allegations the president sought to "shake down" his Ukrainian counterpart, unifying
six separate committee probes under one umbrella.
This isn't about a Campaign, this is about Corruption on a massive scale! https://t.co/DOCvfM8eqi
President Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing amid the controversy, arguing that
there is nothing illicit about requesting an ally to investigate potential corruption. He has
stressed that Biden himself publicly bragged about threatening to withhold US loan
guarantees to Ukraine unless the country fired its head prosecutor, who happened to be
investigating the gas firm that hired Biden's son, Hunter.
What is fascinating in the texts is the 4 attempts that Bill Taylor made to entrap
Sondland-beginning less than a week after Shifty's staffer Thomas Eager met with Bill in
Ukraine.
A showdown between the White House and Democrats is in full swing with the former penning a
letter declaring it would not cooperate with an "illegitimate" and "unconstitutional"
impeachment inquiry conducted in secret. The
letter , published on Tuesday evening, condemned the impeachment initiative in the harshest
terms yet, arguing it deprived President Trump of "constitutionally mandated due
process," and that the inquiry lacked legal legitimacy, as it was never authorized by a
House vote.
Congressional Democrats have flouted the Constitution and all past bipartisan precedent
under the guise of an "impeachment inquiry."
You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses,
to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and
many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.
"You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the
separation of powers," the letter continued "All of this violates the Constitution, the
rule of law, and every past precedent ." [emphasis in original]
The White House accused Democrats of using impeachment as a tool to not only "undo the
democratic results" of the previous election, but to "influence" the upcoming
contest as well, citing the words of Congressman Al Green (D-Texas), who in May expressed
concerns that "if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected."
The letter also notes that ranking Republican committee members had not been granted the
same subpoena powers as the Democratic chairmen leading the impeachment process – as they
were during previous inquiries – slamming the process as unfair and
"one-sided."
Earlier on Monday, the Democratic committee chairs issued a subpoena to compel the testimony
of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the inquiry, after the White House signaled
that it would block his appearance before Congress. The Trump administration appears to be
doubling down on that move, arguing in the letter that it will simply not comply with future
subpoenas.
Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of
fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be
expected to participate in it.
Going along with the inquiry under its "current unconstitutional posture" would
"inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the
separation of powers," the letter said, adding that Democrats have "left the president
no choice" but to refuse to cooperate.
The missive is the White House's latest response to intensifying impeachment efforts
spearheaded by House Democrats, who launched the proceedings late last month accusing Trump of
pressuring the President of Ukraine to probe into the activities of former Vice President Joe
Biden and his son in the country.
Several Democratic opponents shot back at the document, some denouncing the move as an act
of obstruction.
"The White House letter is only the latest attempt to cover up his betrayal of our
democracy, and to insist that the President is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi in a statement on Tuesday, adding the president had "normalize[d]
lawlessness."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Called the House Rules Committee office this morning. In order for House Rules to change
after they pass at the start of the session – in this case January 2019 –
there would have to be a vote taken. In looking at the House Resolution ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/6/all-actions
) all actions occurred in Jan. this year so no vote to amend has been taken. That doesn't
mean that Nan won't use this wonk's paper to bolster her position OR that a particular
committee didn't change their rules. But according to the person I spoke with, the standing
House Rules can not be changed without a vote.
The gentleman also said that Congressional Research Service papers are just that –
interpretations/research on a particular subject that do not hold any legislative weight.
They are requested anonymously so there probably isn't a way to trace who
requested this particular paper or how it ended up being authored by Rybicki (one of seven
she's written this year). Additional little tidbit is that the papers can be requested by
members of Congress or their staff members.
While trying to figure it out on my own found this chilling little factoid from the Rules
Committee page re: bills considered under a "special rules" scenerio ( https://rules.house.gov/about archived here:
http://archive.fo/VIK1C ):
"The Committee has the authority to do virtually anything during the course of consideration
of a measure, including deeming it passed. The Committee can also include a self-executed
amendment which could rewrite just parts of a bill, or the entire measure. In essence, so
long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that
the Rules Committee cannot do. " (emphasis mine)
That makes the House Rules Committee more powerful that the full house voting on "special
rules" bills. Well doesn't that just sound .wrong.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives have passed the point of no
return. The time for prudential judgments -- the Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good.
To back down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. The
New York Times,
the
Washington Post,
CNN,
and
MSNBC
would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go essentially unattended.
Notable quotes:
"... It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out to the Ukrainian government to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates . Considering that both of those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle. ..."
As the phony
impeachment
investigation
targeting President Donald Trump rumbles on, there really is no definitive list of questions that
as yet remain unanswered. Were anyone to compile such a list, it would probably start with five
questions that strike at the heart of the entire affair.
These questions clarify whether the current process is being conducted correctly or is
colored by partisan hostility
– and, indeed, whether the Russian "collusion" investigation
was similarly tainted.
1. Ukraine-DNC Connection?
It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert
Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out
to the
Ukrainian
government
to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates
.
Considering that both of
those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to
influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can
only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle.
2. Anonymous Witnesses?
The so-called whistleblower who came forward with a complaint about the nature of the
president's phone conversation with the new Ukrainian president is hardly a credible witness
since he or she had no firsthand knowledge of the call. Democrats are already making elaborate
but secretive plans to extract testimony from this individual. Can his or her identity be kept
from the public – and from the president – indefinitely?
The president's opponents cannot possibly believe that they can impeach Trump using
secondhand allegations provided by an anonymous source. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has vowed
that, if Democrats refuse to identify this "whistleblower," then he will ensure that any Senate
impeachment trial will do so. Further, it would be necessary for the identities of White House
sources from whom the whistleblower claims to have obtained information to be exposed.
Regardless of laws and rules designed to protect whistleblowers, any formal impeachment
cannot be based upon testimony from unknown persons. Given that Democrats, since day one of the
Trump presidency, have made no secret of their desire to impeach the president, the entire
credibility of such an effort would stand or fall on complete transparency. The American public
and the president himself deserve nothing less than to know the identities of the accusers and
the sources from which they drew their information.
3. Another Whistleblower?
At least one additional whistleblower has now come forward, according to reports, but does
this fact change anything? Indeed, the outrage over the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky appears even more fabricated the more that anonymous individuals
come forward with complaints. Already, it is highly suspicious that almost three weeks passed
between the phone call itself and the filing of a
complaint
about
what was said. Additional complaints filed even later hardly bolster the credibility of the case
against Trump.
4. Schiff's Role?
How has Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) role in this latest assault upon the president compromised
the entire process? Schiff has been less than forthcoming about his knowledge of events or the
extent to which his own staffers worked with the whistleblower even before any complaint was
filed with the intelligence community's inspector general.
Adam Schiff
As if the congressman were not already looking foolish and dishonest, his performance at a
recent hearing was reason enough for Schiff to be compelled to recuse himself. During the event,
he read out his own version of what Trump said to Zelensky – which bore no resemblance to the
now-public transcript. The very idea that Schiff has either the capability or the desire to
conduct a fair and objective investigation is utterly laughable.
5. Window Of Opportunity?
Finally, how big is the window of opportunity for congressional Democrats to impeach the
president? They may have so far avoided making the process official, but articles of impeachment
must, at some point, be brought to the floor of the House for a vote.
Once the opposition party chooses its presidential nominee, the campaign for the White House
begins in earnest, and impeaching Trump during an election campaign is going to be seen as
purely an attempt to influence the 2020 election – even by those Americans who do not already
see it as such.
Democrats, therefore, have around eight months to conclude their investigations, draw up
articles of impeachment, and bring them up for debate and a vote. The holiday season will take a
bite out of that time, so the clock is ticking. The chances of impeachment going before the
Senate before the 2020 Democratic National Convention are slim to none.
These five basic questions, when answered objectively,
determine whether there is any
realistic chance of Trump's enemies removing him from office before the next election
or
this entire
exercise
is,
for Democrats, a
political catastrophe.
The public isn't buying any of this because people are
desensitized after hearing for 3 years that Trump will be gone in
days, the walls are closing in, etc. 3 years of that **** and it
was all nonsense. Remember how every Friday was going to be the
day that Mueller dropped the dime on Trump? You can't do that for
years and expect people to have any ***** left to give. That
shipped has sailed.
I want to know about
Burisma
. It is at the heart of the
matter.
I want a timeline of their recent activities, board of
directors etc. Why was their money seized in London? Who
released it and why? Who asked Biden to join the board and why?
Both Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have said the impeachment
tactic a a major mistake. Chomsky says the Dems have not discussed
jobs, economy, etc even once. They have only satisfied their own
shallow egos by screaming "RussiaGate" "Impeachment" etc.
according to Chomsky.
This latest impeachment effort is as phony as all get out. It is
for show to the Democratic base and it is guaranteed to fail. As
long as Trump is handling the Epstein investigations. Heat from
democrats is going to be completely manageable.
http://quillian.net/blog/an-epstein-deal-is-in-place/
Yeah, the whole Biden corruption stuff has been debunked just like the Trump-Putin
conspiracy. But lots of people still believe one debunking or the other. It all depends on
which side of the infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are too obscure and
byzantine.
And while we're at it, get a handle on what Hunter Biden, Biden's bundler, and the CIA
friendly former president of Poland were all doing on Burisma's board ostensibly with no
knowledge of it all from Obama's point man on Ukraine--Joe Biden.
'Why do the CIA assassins and coup-plotters love this "whistleblower"?'
" Ninety former national security officials under the Obama and Bush administrations -- and
three who served for a period under Donald Trump -- have signed an "Open Letter to the American
People" defending the CIA officer, as yet unidentified, whose whistleblower complaint has
become the basis for the House of Representatives opening an impeachment inquiry into the
president.
The signers "applaud the whistleblower not only for living up to that responsibility but
also for using precisely the channels made available by federal law for raising such
concerns."
They further claim, "A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that
serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed What's more, being a responsible
whistleblower means that, by law, one is protected from certain egregious forms of
retaliation."
They draw the conclusion that the anti-Trump whistleblower's identity must be protected at
all costs, writing that "he or she has done what our law demands; now he or she deserves our
protection."
This professed defense of whistleblowing as a critical function of democracy would be more
convincing if it did not come from high officials in the administration that prosecuted more
leakers and whistleblowers than all previous US administrations combined.
The signers include former CIA directors John Brennan, Michael Hayden and Michael Morell,
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ,
former Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy, former Undersecretary of State for Political
Affairs Wendy Sherman (Obama's point-woman on Ukraine). Bush administration officials who
signed the letter include Matthew G. Olsen, former head of the Justice Department's National
Security Division, and Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary for policy,
Department of Homeland Security. Among the former Trump aides who signed is Andrea
Kendall-Taylor, former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the
National Security Council.
These officials had a much different attitude toward genuine American whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou, who exposed crimes of US imperialism.
Manning supplied WikiLeaks with Pentagon files documenting US war crimes in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as State Department cables showing US conspiracies against governments
around the world. Snowden brought to light NSA spying on the entire world. Kiriakou exposed CIA
torture in secret overseas prisons during the "war on terror."
None of these genuine whistleblowers received any form of protection. On the contrary, they
were rebuffed in their efforts to expose atrocities by the US military-intelligence apparatus
and felt compelled to release the information to the public. For their courageous actions, they
have been brutally persecuted." [snip]
"In a recent commentary in Consortium News , Kiriakou noted the contrast between his
own treatment and that accorded the "whistleblower" in the Ukraine case. He wrote, "If he's a
whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career
is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing." [snip]
"In other words, the former CIA agent suggests, the entire "whistleblower" complaint against
Trump is likely an operation directed by higher-level officials at the agency.
Similar questions are raised in a remarkable
article posted Monday on the website of Rolling Stone magazine, written by its main
political writer Matt Taibbi."
And if you haven't seen it already:
"Meet the Press" anchor Chuck Todd grills senator: "You don't trust the FBI and CIA?", Barry
Grey, wsws.org
And of course Grey speaks to the irony and hypocrisy afoot with Senators Ron Johnson and
Chris Murphy as well:
"When Johnson evaded Todd's questions concerning Trump's bullying of Ukraine to advance his
personal electoral chances, and instead repeatedly raised the Clinton campaign's collaboration
with Ukrainian officials against Trump, Todd exclaimed as though in exasperated disbelief:
" Do you not trust the FBI? You don't trust the CIA? "
Johnson replied, "Absolutely not," to which Todd responded incredulously, "You don't trust
any of those agencies?" [snip]
"The Democrats and their media chorus present what was rightly known as America's "Murder,
Incorporated," along with its domestic counterpart, the FBI, as pillars of "democracy,"
improbable as this would seem to anyone familiar with the criminal history of these
organizations. They evidently believe that the public is infinitely gullible and suffering from
collective memory loss.
These, after all, are the organizations that justified the war in Iraq on the basis of the
Big Lie of "weapons of mass destruction." They created the fraudulent narrative of the "war on
terror" to justify aggressive wars in Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa that killed
millions and destroyed entire societies . Meanwhile, in Libya and Syria, they funded and
collaborated with Al Qaeda-linked terrorist militias in wars for regime-change.
The CIA has engineered coups and installed military dictatorships and far-right regimes all
over the world. It would take many volumes to detail all of the lies and crimes of these
pillars of the "deep state" against the people of the United States and the entire world."
[snip]
"Todd's next guest was Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat from Connecticut), who co-sponsored
with Johnson the bill to provide more arms to Kiev. Murphy repeatedly attacked Johnson for a
lack of "patriotism."
The final guest was John Brennan -- now a senior national security and intelligence analyst
for NBC -- whom Todd presented as a national hero unjustly slandered and victimized by Trump
and his political allies. Introducing the 25-year veteran of the CIA, who served as deputy
executive director under George W. Bush and director under Barack Obama, Todd asked: "And how
would you explain to somebody, you have been completely character assassinated and eviscerated
Do you understand how you got here?"
Brennan replied that he has indeed been "pilloried as an example of the deep state." To
which Todd exclaimed indignantly: "Well, at this point, it's a campaign to destroy the
credibility of the intelligence community. Even now, Senator Johnson would not affirm that he
trusted the CIA and FBI right now. What does that say about those two agencies right now and
their ability to conduct the work of protecting America?"
Brennan took the opportunity provided by Todd to denounce the "disinformation" that is
"inundating the airwaves," singling out "social media platforms," with the implication that
media sources that do not disseminate the CIA line should be shut down or censored. "
Grey finishes with a brief resumé of Brennan's fascistic Imperial crimes.
"This entire country should be scared that at a moment when we need patriots, what we are
getting is blind partisan loyalty." pic.twitter.com/Fvq2OAriKo
'We Absolutely Could Not Do That': When Seeking Foreign
Help Was Out of the Question https://nyti.ms/30Lkzni
NYT - Peter Baker - October 6
WASHINGTON -- One day in October 1992, four Republican congressmen showed up in the Oval
Office with an audacious recommendation. President George Bush was losing his re-election
race, and they told him the only way to win was to hammer his challenger Bill Clinton's
patriotism for protesting the Vietnam War while in London and visiting Moscow as a young
man.
Mr. Bush was largely on board with that approach. But what came next crossed the line, as
far as he and his team were concerned. "They wanted us to contact the Russians or the British
to seek information on Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow," James A. Baker III, Mr. Bush's White
House chief of staff, wrote in a memo (*) later that day. "I said we absolutely could not do
that."
President Trump insists he and his attorney general did nothing wrong by seeking damaging
information about his domestic opponents from Ukraine, Australia, Italy and Britain or by
publicly calling on China to investigate his most prominent Democratic challenger. But for
every other White House in the modern era, Republican and Democratic, the idea of enlisting
help from foreign powers for political advantage was seen as unwise and politically
dangerous, if not unprincipled.
A survey of 10 former White House chiefs of staff under Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bush,
Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama found that none recalled any circumstance under
which the White House had solicited or accepted political help from other countries, and all
said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds.
"I served three presidents in the White House and don't remember even hearing any
speculation to consider asking for such action," said Andrew H. Card Jr., who ran the younger
Mr. Bush's White House and was the longest-serving chief of staff in the last six
decades.
William M. Daley, who served as commerce secretary under Mr. Clinton and chief of staff
under Mr. Obama, said if someone had even proposed such an action, he probably would
"recommend the person be escorted out of" the White House, then fired and reported to ethics
officials.
Other chiefs were just as definitive. "Did not happen on Reagan's watch. Would not have
happened on Reagan's watch," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, his last chief of staff. "I would
have shut him down," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as Mr. Clinton's chief of staff and Mr.
Obama's defense secretary.
The sense of incredulity among White House veterans in recent days crossed party and
ideological lines. "This is unprecedented," said Samuel K. Skinner, who preceded Mr. Baker as
chief of staff under Mr. Bush. Other chiefs who said they never encountered such a situation
included Thomas F. McLarty III and John D. Podesta (Clinton) and Rahm Emanuel, Denis R.
McDonough and Jacob J. Lew (Obama).
History has shown that foreign affairs can be treacherous for presidents, even just the
suspicion of mixing politics with the national interest. As a candidate in 1968, Richard M.
Nixon sought to forestall a Vietnam peace deal by President Lyndon B. Johnson just before the
election.
Associates of Mr. Reagan were accused of trying to delay the release of hostages by Iran
when he was a candidate in 1980 for fear that it would aid President Jimmy Carter, but a
bipartisan House investigation concluded that there was no merit to the charge. Mr. Clinton
faced months of investigation over 1996 campaign contributions from Chinese interests tied to
the Beijing government.
In none of those cases did an incumbent president personally apply pressure to foreign
powers to damage political opponents. Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine's president this summer to
investigate involvement with Democrats in 2016 and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
while holding up $391 million in American aid. Mr. Trump has said he was simply investigating
corruption, not trying to benefit himself.
"The right way to look at it is the vice president was selling our country out," Rudolph
W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said in an interview on Sunday. Mr. Trump was
fulfilling his duty, he said. "I don't see what the president did wrong."
Mr. Giuliani has been leading Mr. Trump's efforts to dig up evidence of corruption by the
Democrats in Ukraine, meeting with various officials and negotiating a commitment by the
newly installed government in Kiev to investigate conspiracy theories about Ukrainian
involvement in the 2016 election and supposed conflicts of interest by Mr. Biden.
Told that past White House chiefs of staff said any legitimate allegations should be
handled by the Justice Department, not the president, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's if you can
trust the Justice Department. My witnesses don't trust the Justice Department, and they don't
trust the F.B.I." He added that he would not have either until Attorney General William P.
Barr took over.
Mr. Barr has contacted foreign officials for help in investigating the origin of the
special counsel investigation by Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference and ties
with Mr. Trump's campaign, part of an effort to prove that the whole matter was a "hoax," as
the president has insisted.
Mr. Trump defends himself by saying that other presidents have leaned on foreign
governments for help. That is true, but when other presidents have pressured counterparts and
even held up American assistance to coerce cooperation, it has generally been to achieve
certain policy goals -- not to advance the president's personal or political agenda.
As an example, Mr. Trump often cites Mr. Obama, who was overheard telling President Dmitri
Medvedev of Russia in 2012 that he would have more "more flexibility" to negotiate missile
defense after the fall election. While that may be objectionable, it is not the same thing as
asking a foreign government to intervene in an American election.
"They assume everybody's as sleazy and dirty as they are, which is not the case," Mr.
Emanuel said.
Mr. Trump points to Mr. Biden, arguing that the former vice president was the one who
abused his power by threatening to withhold $1 billion in American aid to Ukraine unless it
fired its prosecutor general.
Mr. Biden's son Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company,
earning $50,000 a month. The company's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been a subject
of cases overseen by the prosecutor, and so Mr. Trump contends that Mr. Biden sought the
prosecutor's ouster to benefit his son.
As a matter of appearances, at least, the former vice president's family left him open to
suspicion. Even some of his defenders say it was unseemly for Hunter Biden to seemingly trade
on his family name. The elder Mr. Biden has said he never discussed his son's business
dealings in Ukraine with him, but some Democrats suggest he should have if only to prevent
just such a situation from arising.
For all of that, however, no evidence has emerged that Mr. Biden moved to push out the
prosecutor to benefit his son. No memo or text message has become public linking the two.
None of the American officials who were involved at the time have come forward alleging any
connection. No whistle-blower has filed a complaint.
In pressing for the prosecutor's ouster, Mr. Biden was carrying out Mr. Obama's policy as
developed by his national security team and coordinated with European allies and the
International Monetary Fund, all of which considered the Ukrainian prosecutor to be
deliberately overlooking corruption.
Indeed, at the time Mr. Biden acted, there was no public evidence that the prosecutor's
office was actively pursuing investigations of Burisma, although Mr. Zlochevsky's allies say
the prosecutor continued to use the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from the
oligarch and his team.
The 1992 episode involving Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker provides an intriguing case study in the
way previous administrations have viewed seeking political help overseas. At the time, Mr.
Bush was trailing in the polls and eager for any weapon to turn things around.
Representatives Robert K. Dornan, Duncan Hunter and Duke Cunningham of California and Sam
Johnson of Texas urged the president to ask Russia and Britain for help.
Mr. Dornan, reached last week, said Mr. Baker offered no objections during the meeting.
"Baker sat there in the Oval Office like a bump on a log," he recalled. "He said nothing." If
Mr. Baker advised Mr. Bush not to reach out to foreign governments, then he did so after the
congressmen had left, Mr. Dornan said.
Mr. Dornan said that was a mistake and that Mr. Bush should have done as Mr. Trump has.
"The bottom line from me was, 'If you don't do this, Mr. President, leader of the free world,
you will lose,'" Mr. Dornan said. "And he didn't do it and he lost. Baker cost Bush that
second term."
As it was, Mr. Baker and some of his aides got in trouble anyway because State Department
employees searched Mr. Clinton's passport file to determine whether he had ever tried to
renounce his American citizenship. They found no such evidence, but an independent counsel
was appointed to investigate whether the search violated any laws.
The attorney general who requested the investigation? Mr. Barr, in his first tour running
the Justice Department. The independent counsel who was appointed? Joseph diGenova, a lawyer
now helping Mr. Giuliani look for information in Ukraine. In the passport case, Mr. diGenova
concluded that no laws had been broken and that he should never have been appointed in first
place.
As for seeking help from Russia and Britain, Mr. Baker declined to comment last week, but
his peers said he did exactly as they would have. "It would have been ludicrous at that stage
to do anything," Mr. Skinner said. "Baker's decision was obviously the right one."
* Read the 1992 Memo President George Bush's Team
Sent About Seeking Foreign Help to Beat Bill Clinton
When Republican congressmen suggested Mr. Bush reach out to Russia or Britain for
information that could help him win his re-election race against Bill Clinton, James A. Baker
III, then the White House chief of staff, wrote this memo.
This is pretty superficial: Ukraine is vassal state dully controlled by Washington (kind of
Puerto Rico); what foreign influence we are talking about ?
Peter Baker just repeats Clinton camp talking points.
Ukrainian security establishment and probably large part of Ukrainian Congress (Rada) is
probably fully controlled by CIA.
So anything Ukrainian side was doing to interfere with the US election has to be ordered
from Washington, DC (which was done by "Obama regime", who wanted dirt of Trump team)
The CIA
officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out
the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out all of us."
Notable quotes:
"... If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over. ..."
From a former CIA whistleblower: "If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president,
then his career is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing. A potential whistleblower
is supposed to go through the chain of command as the current whistleblower did...
So even if he is a legitimate whistleblower, the CIA officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally
again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out
all of us." https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/30/john-kiriakou-what-was-this-cia-officer-thinking/
Strange, very strange and suspicious, too, particularly since Mike Morrell, former head of the CIA, helped start the campaign
against Trump?
Do we really want spooks meddling in domestic politics?
The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump
impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every
political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the
opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real
risk for their job and safety.
A CIA employee who lodged a whistleblower complaint over President Trump's request that Ukraine
investigate former Vice President Joe Biden
has a "professional relationship with one of
the 2020 candidates,"
according to the
Washington
Examiner
's
Byron York - citing a source familiar with last Friday's impeachment inquiry
interview with Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
Now we know why House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) won't release the
transcript...
"
The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship
with one of the Democratic candidates
," said York's source.
"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered
Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential
candidate," said a
third
person with knowledge of the testimony.
All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the
whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship
between the two was.
In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on
the whistleblower's part, "
such evidence did not change my determination that the
complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible,' particularly given the other
information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review
."
Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the
whistleblower acted out of bias
. Indeed, the transcript of
Trump's
July 25 call
with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to
see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower's purported bias. -
Washington
Examiner
In short, a registered Democrat on the CIA payroll went to Adam Schiff's committee, who referred
him to a Democratic operative attorney, who helped him file a whistleblower complaint on a form
which
was altered to allow second-hand information
.
Update:
Former State Department official Peter Van Buren told
Tucker
Carlson
on Monday that
the second 'whistleblower' is simply the the source for the
original 'second-hand' complaint.
(h/t Gateway Pundit)
"The president is dropping by the city on Thursday for one of his periodic angry
wank-fests at the Target Center, which is the venue in which this event will be inflicted
upon the Twin Cities. (And, just as an aside, given the events of the past 10 days, this one
should be a doozy.) Other Minneapolis folk are planning an extensive unwelcoming party
outside the arena, which necessarily would require increased security, which is expensive.
So, realizing that it was dealing with a notorious deadbeat -- in keeping with his customary
business plan, El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has stiffed 10 cities this year for bills relating
to security costs that total almost a million bucks -- the company that provides the security
for the Target Center wants the president*'s campaign to shell out more than $500,000.
This has sent the president* into a Twitter tantrum against Frey, who seems not to be that
impressed by it. Right from when the visit was announced, Frey has been jabbing at the
president*'s ego. From the Star-Tribune:
"Our entire city will stand not behind the President, but behind the communities and
people who continue to make our city -- and this country -- great," Frey said. "While there
is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will
never be welcome in Minneapolis."
It is a mayor's lot to deal with out-of-state troublemakers. Always has been."
This is not about Trump. This is not even about Ukraine and/or foreign powers influence on
the US election (of which Israel, UK, and Saudi are three primary examples; in this
particular order.)
Russiagate 2.0 (aka Ukrainegate) is the case, textbook example if you wish, of how the
neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention
and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from
real issues.
An excellent observation by JohnH (October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM )
"It all depends on which side of the Infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are
too obscure and byzantine."
There are two competing narratives here:
1. NARRATIVE 1: CIA swamp scum tried to re-launch Russiagate as Russiagate 2.0. This is
CIA coup d'état aided and abetted by CIA-democrats like Pelosi and Schiff. Treason, as
Trump aptly said. This is narrative shared by "anti-Deep Staters" who sometimes are nicknamed
"Trumptards". Please note that the latter derogatory nickname is factually incorrect:
supporters of this narrative often do not support Trump. They just oppose machinations of the
Deep State. And/or neoliberalism personified by Clinton camp, with its rampant
corruption.
2. NARRATIVE 2: Trump tried to derail his opponent using his influence of foreign state
President (via military aid) as leverage and should be impeached for this and previous
crimes. ("Full of Schiff" commenters narrative, neoliberal democrats, or demorats.)
Supporters of this category usually bought Russiagate 1.0 narrative line, hook and sinker.
Some of them are brainwashed, but mostly simply ignorant neoliberal lemmings without even
basic political education.
In any case, while Russiagate 2.0 is probably another World Wrestling Federation style
fight, I think "anti-Deep-staters" are much closer to the truth.
What is missing here is the real problem: the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (and
elsewhere).
So this circus serves an important purpose (intentionally or unintentionally) -- to disrupt
voters from the problems that are really burning, and are equal to a slow-progressing cancer in the
US society.
And implicitly derail Warren (being a weak politician she does not understand that, and
jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon )
I am not that competent here, so I will just mention some obvious symptoms:
Loss of legitimacy of the ruling neoliberal elite (which demonstrated itself in 2016
with election of Trump);
Desperation of many working Americans with sliding standard of living; loss of meaningful
jobs due to offshoring of manufacturing and automation (which demonstrated itself in opioids
abuse epidemics; similar to epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR before its dissolution.
Loss of previously available freedoms. Loss of "free press" replaced by the neoliberal
echo chamber in major MSM. The uncontrolled and brutal rule of financial oligarchy and allied
with the intelligence agencies as the third rail of US politics (plus the conversion of the
state after 9/11 into national security state);
Coming within this century end of the "Petroleum Age" and the global crisis that it can
entail;
Rampant militarism, tremendous waist of resources on the arms race, and overstretched
efforts to maintain and expand global, controlled from Washington, neoliberal empire. Efforts
that since 1991 were a primary focus of unhinged after 1991 neocon faction US elite who
totally controls foreign policy establishment ("full-spectrum dominance). They are stealing money from
working people to fund an imperial project, and as part of neoliberal redistribution of wealth up
Most of the commenters here live a comfortable life in the financially secured retirement,
and, as such, are mostly satisfied with the status quo. And almost completely isolated from
the level of financial insecurity of most common Americans (healthcare racket might be the
only exception).
And re-posting of articles which confirm your own worldview (echo chamber posting) is nice
entertainment, I think ;-)
Some of those posters actually sometimes manage to find really valuable info. For which I
am thankful. In other cases, when we have a deluge of abhorrent neoliberal propaganda
postings (the specialty of Fred C. Dobbs) which often generate really insightful comments from the
members of the "anti-Deep State" camp.
Still it would be beneficial if the flow of neoliberal spam is slightly curtailed.
Trump solicited a campaign contribution from a foreign power and withheld congressionally
approved military aid in an act of extortion. The transcript is 7 freaking pages. If you are
okay with this you are a traitor.
Further, last night he did what Putin wanted him to do in respect to Syria and Kurdistan -
and this will like result in our ally being annihilated. If you are okay with this you are a
traitor.
You just do not understand the reality basking in your delusional neoliberal Grand
Myth.
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. At least since 2014. It is a a vassal state totally (I
mean totally) controlled from Washington, DC. Including country security services. Kind of
Puerto Rico.
"... My belief is that many things are classified for the benefit of the IC Community. The guy from Judicial Watch said as much. ..."
"... In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Shokin were investigating Burisma Holdings simply to shake down the owners. That's just business in Ukraine. Things have only gotten worse since the 2014 coup. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to hire a cokehead failson like Hunter Biden for a $600K a year no-show job, except for the political cover he provides. ..."
"... And when Shokin was fired - his replacement was just as corrupt, but the replacement left Burisma Holdings alone. The Ukrainians got the message. And as soon as that happened, Joe Biden suddenly stopped caring about corruption in Ukraine. In other words, the political cover (the "krysha" as they call it there) worked exactly the way it was supposed to work. ..."
"... For that matter, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine, either. Anyone who thinks otherwise should not buy bridges. The only thing Trump cared about was getting the Ukrainians to provide him with a stick to beat his political opponents with. ..."
"... The consideration for Ukrainian assistance was more weapons to use to sell surreptitiously or to butcher the civilians on Donbass with. And Zelensky sounded like he was auditioning to be Trump's prison bride. ..."
"... The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence. ..."
"A second whistleblower is now considering filing a complaint about President Donald Trump's
conduct regarding Ukraine, the New York
Times reported Friday.
This whistleblower has "more direct information about the events than the first
whistle-blower," according to the Times. It's a claim that, if true, could bolster the
credibility of the initial complaint that triggered the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into
whether Trump solicited election interference from Ukraine.
The first whistleblower's complaint, which was released in redacted
form to the public in late September , alleged that on a July 25 phone call Trump pressured
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to push for investigations into potential 2020 rival Joe
Biden." Vox
------------
The lawyer representing this person states that he has "multiple whistleblowers" as clients.
Ah! How clever! Are all these public spirited citizens career employees of the CIA? Little
birds still twittering in the trees in my back garden tell me they are. This sounds like a CIA
conspiracy designed to force Trump from office. The WH and NSC staffs are peopled by some
political appointees and a horde of career people detailed from various departments of the
Executive Branch; CIA, Defense, State, Justice , Treasury, etc. The lending agency selects the
people who are lent. The opportunity for someone like Brennan who still has a lot of faithful
followers at CIA to plant a group of informants and operatives in Trump's WH has been evident
and remains so.
My instincts and the application of Occam's Razor lead me to the conclusion that there is an
"operations room" somewhere that is coordinating the efforts to remove Trump from office in
what does amount to a "soft coup d'etat." A fair minded person looking back over Trump's term
will see that the attempts to undermine and bring him down began the day after his inauguration
and have continued ever since in wave after wave of accusations and press induced frenzies.
This cannot be accidental and it will continue through his second term if he has one. Trump is
leader of a counter-revolution of the Deplorables. From the point of view of the Globalist Left
Trump must be removed and prevented from doing things like packing the federal judiciary with
pro-Deplorable judges. Stay tuned. PL
I have no connections with the CIA and I considered Trump to be incompetent ever since he
came down that escalator and continued downhill. I would think that many in the government
would agree with me and would have more firsthand knowledge of his misdeeds. So, it is
probably more of a consensus than conspiracy at hand.
Many see the income inequality as a big problem and unsustainable. We don't want the
historical remedies, which were the French and Russian revolutions. The good news is that
there are important discussions about it...
Unlike you I know a great deal about CIA. I have two medals from them for assistig their
overseas ops in specific cases. The fact that you are sympathetic to their campaign to eject
Trump from office means little. You have always hated Trump.
Do you wish to hold Deplorables accountable for Trump, in what way?
I can excuse Trump a great deal of his unconventional style and behavior for exactly one
reason; he was legitimately elected, according to the Constitution, to the office he
presently holds. This, together with the huge turnouts at his rallies, is evidence that a
sizeable segment of the population does not consider him corrupt and in fact still ardently
believe that he has their best interests at heart. Who am I to disagree?
If the Dems can produce real evidence of corruption then impeachment will be
appropriate. But what we are seeing right now is a plot to use impeachment as the
continuation of democracy by other means - heck Rep. Al Green even said so out loud. The Deep
State wants rid of Trump, but last time I looked, in the absence of High Crimes, it is still
the People who get to make this decision.
A while back our host came up with a brilliant alternative motto for the CIA;
"L'état, c'est nous". It seems clear that elements in the CIA now want to accomplish
regime change domestically. I hope that Trump accomplishes what JFK could not and scatters
them to the winds.
Sir,
Can you kindly tell me what specific crimes were perpetrated by Pres Trump say in comparison
to Pres Bush (starting an illegal war on trumped up charges in Iraq and many others including
use of torture) or by Pres Obama (overlooking the banksters fraud on the American people or
starting the illegal Libya operation). So you are willing to give the above two saints a
pass, and hold Trump for a higher standards, I am wondering what is this higher standard?
By all means, impeach him for high crimes. I don't know what those would be, and neither do
you. The Borg wants him gone because he is a disrupter to the established corrupt status quo
of both parties. I didn't vote for him in '16, but plan to in '20. Tulsi Gabbard is the only
Dem I would consider voting for.
Y'know, Biden isn't really "the candidate" at present, but simply an aspirant. So why is it a
big deal if in a phone call Trump suggests some sort of Douchebaggery on Biden's part was in
play with the deal involving the sinecure for his cokehead son? And furthermore, it seems to
me that Trump would relish having Biden, the eternal weak sister, as his opponent in next
year's election. So, the idea that this is a campaign tactic by Trump, to me just doesn't
pencil out. As for the WH lawn thing? Injudicious maybe, but I'd like to hear a cogent
explanation of why it's a violation of law.
Nancy has the majority in the House. 235 members in her caucus. All she needs is 218 votes
to send the Bill of Impeachment to the Senate for a trial. This charade they are playing by
not having a full House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry is to prevent the minority from
having any voice in the proceedings. This is NOT about high crimes. This is an attempt at
political decapitation. As Democrat Rep. Al Green said - we need to impeach him or else he'll
be re-elected. Nancy and her posse don't want the American electorate from making their
choice if Trump should have a second term.
The big question is if 20 Republican senators will join all the Democrats in convicting
Trump? We know guys like Romney will, who else will join him from the GOP side?
An attack on democracy he claims. Yet he was one of the chief advocates of the Russia
Collusion hysteria wherein the Obama administration used both domestic & foreign
intelligence to ACTUALLY INTERFERE in an election. That was an attack on the very foundation
of our Republic.
Former CIA director John O. Brennan, whose security clearance was revoked by president Trump,
was given six minutes to talk on today's Meet the Press program on the NBC television
network--
"....the attempts to undermine and bring him down began the day after his inauguration and
have continued ever since in wave after wave of accusations and press induced frenzies."
Sir
Other than tweet furiously, my perception is that Trump has not fought back. Considering
the persistence of the putschists, I would have expected him to have been far more ruthless,
aggressive and pointed in taking the battle to the Deep State.
I don't understand what happened to the CIA. It has morphed from "a university gone to war"
to some kind of bizarro globalist socialist anti-American ideals HQ with a neocon twist. Did
that happen under Obama?
Does anyone know when the Dems started investigating Trump? Was it during the campaign? Or
the day after the election? Did they receive help from a British
intel operator? Silly me I've just assumed all of the lead contenders investigate
the competition.
It was never a "university gone to war." The first generation were OSS men from the
elites. The next generation of leaders were former military intelligence enlisted operatives
whom the elites recruited from the services as people who would do the hard work for them.
Want me to name them? The present generation are antifa types who have infiltrated the
system. They are Brennan and Clapper's natural allies. You do remember that Brennan voted for
Gus Hall?
There is no "line" in this case. Trmp is not a threat to the constitution. He has done
nothing to threaten the constitution. You leftists are simply attempting to eject him from
office qlong with your allies in the Deep State and the media, some of them in Fox News.
It's a war of Globalists Vs Nationalism/Populism. And Trump is in the way of the
Globalists who wants their Totalitarian Iron Fist Rule over all humanity.
Trump and Putin both advocate Nationalism Vs Globalist Tyranny.
I keep hearing the talking point 'that everyone, the EU, IMF (and of course God Almighty),
wanted Shokin removed because he was corrupt, that this was not Biden's idea'. Have any of
these elite stepped up and publicly said, 'I wanted Shokin dismissed'? I wish someone in the
MSM would ask Biden how he got the idea to pressure for Shokin's removal, who else did he
discuss this with.
Regarding the Deep State
By that I mean the permanent bureaucracy in our Intelligence Community that believes they
have a right/duty to enforce orthodoxy on neer-do-well elected officials; not a hidden govt.
(IMO they are incapable of governing, they can only destroy). Their main weapon is, surprise, information warfare, selectively leaking partly true info to
a compliant MSM. This is extremely effective. How would a President combat this?
Why doesn't the President use his power of declassification to either release the full
context of the leak or to declassify past operations that the IC would find embarrassing. I
would never, under any circumstances, favor releasing info that would harm the security of
the U.S., especially for political reasons. My belief is that many things are classified for
the benefit of the IC Community. The guy from Judicial Watch said as much.
I claim no special knowledge of the CIA, but Ukraine is a place that I know well.
Everyone in the Ukrainian government is corrupt, from the postman and the fire department
all the way up to the president. Everything there is for sale, everything, everywhere, all
the time.
Of course Shokin, the fired prosecutor, was corrupt. Everyone knows it.
In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Shokin were investigating Burisma Holdings
simply to shake down the owners. That's just business in Ukraine. Things have only gotten
worse since the 2014 coup.
That said, there is no reason to hire a cokehead failson like Hunter Biden for a $600K a
year no-show job, except for the political cover he provides.
And when Shokin was fired - his replacement was just as corrupt, but the replacement left
Burisma Holdings alone. The Ukrainians got the message. And as soon as that happened, Joe
Biden suddenly stopped caring about corruption in Ukraine. In other words, the political
cover (the "krysha" as they call it there) worked exactly the way it was supposed to
work.
For that matter, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine, either. Anyone who thinks
otherwise should not buy bridges. The only thing Trump cared about was getting the Ukrainians
to provide him with a stick to beat his political opponents with.
The consideration for Ukrainian assistance was more weapons to use to sell surreptitiously
or to butcher the civilians on Donbass with. And Zelensky sounded like he was auditioning to
be Trump's prison bride.
As far as I am concerned, none of the parties come out of this looking good at all.
The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump
impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every
political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the
opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real
risk for their job and safety.
Ukraine is not an independent country. It is a de-facto colony of the USA. Trump just ordered
his subordinate (in a very polite ) term to conduct investigation of criminal behaviour of Biden
family.
When the framers of the constitution gave Congress the power to impeach a president, one of
the high crimes they had in mind was acceding to what Alexander Hamilton called "the desire in
foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils". James Madison argued for
impeachment lest a president "might betray his trust to foreign powers".
The second question is whether Trump did this. The answer is also an unqualified yes. In the
published version of his phone conversation with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy,
Trump asks for the "favor" of digging up dirt on Joe Biden.
Trump is much more than the kid with his hand in the cookie jar, like a brat he smashed the
cookie jar and said "What cookie Jar? Biden did it!"
And the GOP wimps are there, either nodding in agreement, or looking the other way..
Well.. Total Sociopath, then, maybe even a full-on Psychopath.
Anti-social-personality disorders in the highest scale -so to speak- always are there
since childhood. Psychopaths are as such genetically, from birth. Unlike sociopaths.
Sociopaths usually have become as such through things/trauma's experienced in life. Their
initially healthy front-cortex is usually either damaged, or has less influence on their
behaviour. In Psychopaths, the front cortex doesn't function at all it seems, or at
sùch a low level that it can be considered absent. Psychopaths usually have a history
of seriously harming animals, people, insects, around them for fun since childhood.
End-result almost the same, though. Complete and utter lack of empathy, ( though,
Sociopaths often dó have empathy for their direct family/relatives, where Osychopaths
even lack thàt.) stratospherically elevated sense of superiority, prone to
uncontrolled ( sometimes even violent and murderous) tantrums when things do not go as he/she
wants/demands etc... Enjoyment in the suffering of others. No conscience to speak of etc.
The brand value was all he wanted and that has multiplied. It was always win-win.
Heh. I wonder if you underestimate the ruthlessness of the establishment. Once stripped of
the (so far surprisingly robust) protections afforded by elected office I imagine it's more
likely he'll be hounded to his grave pour dencourager les autres than ignored as
merely a spent pol. I doubt they'll observe the decencies of the mafia and leave his family
alone either.
The US is a tinpot republic that ever since the Patriot Act has virtually reduced all
citizens to enemies of a paranoid state, untl proven otherwise.
In a strange sort of way a president like Trump seems like the ideal sort of man to head
such a dysfunctional system (because it reflects how uncivilised it is).
Put another way - even if a piece of political theatre does take place (in the shape of an
impeachment) it is only a matter of time before Trump is replaced by an unequally
unappetising leader who will resume business as usual with powers that really control US
economic and military policy.
all the patriot act did was tell the American people that the government doesn't give a
"hoot" about the US constitution (specifically the 4th amendment). If the American people
wish to trade their freedom for their security, then the constitutionally legal way to do
that is with another amendment effectively repealing the fourth.
In a strange sort of way a president like Trump seems like the ideal sort of man to head
such a dysfunctional system (because it reflects how uncivilised it is).
The American public have been groomed for years, mainly through cutting education budgets, to
accept this kind of president. The pesky internet tends to even things up, but people need to
want to use it. They certainly will when their buying power drops.
Put another way - even if a piece of political theatre does take place (in the shape of
an impeachment) it is only a matter of time before Trump is replaced by an unequally
unappetising leader who will resume business as usual with powers that really control US
economic and military policy.
It goes in a pendulum swing. Bush, Obama, Trump, Someone Else... It's not so much a right
left swing as an Idiot-swing. What the American public want is someone they can admire. Many
people admired Obama but so do many people admire Trump. They're not the same people. What
Obama promised, and delivered, was get the USA out of the shock of 2007-08 and put it back on
its feet again after Bush spent all that money on the Irak war. This keeps everyone happy, as
a large part of the US economy is from consumption. It also keeps a part of industry happy,
as they need to be able to export and import. The public is not happy with a weak dollar, nor
tarifs that both push import prices up. Bush kept the arms industry very happy, for obvious
reasons and Trump's constant tension-building abroad sort of does the same. But it still
comes down to how happy the public is and how much they can or refuse to be manipulated.
They're a bit wiser now.
Newsflash: Politics the world over is a cesspool. History and Ancient history says it has
always been so. Names and places, incidents and scandals are in no short supply to confirm
nothing much has changed in the modern world.
"Politics is a dirty business" is the understatement of all time. While many
politicians are indeed working in the interests of their constituents, many more are not and
political parties have only one interest - themselves.
If you want an indication of how much the table is tilted, witness the recent announcement
that it's ok for politicians to lie when trying to increase their support. If that doesn't
tell us all we need to know - about the links between politics and business, or the
fundamental lack of morals inherent in all politics, of the contempt the public are held in,
I don't know what will.
Yeah but they changed the rules to bypass a vote on an impeachment inquiry specifically to
prevent the accused due process & the ability to challenge the accusations.
In other words they'll vote to impeach after preventing opposing evidence, in this case
the Obama administration meddling in 2016 with the Ukraine's help & the Biden pay for
play operation laughably conducted under the guise of rooting out corruption in
Ukraine.
As grizzled old prosecutor Rudy Giuliani said he learnt early on if you want to find where
the corruption is ignore everything else, follow the money, and it all leads straight to the
Bidens.
That didn't take long. There we have it. The Dems are totally justified conducting a kangaroo
court show trial because 'there is no opposing evidence'.
But then what? Is there any core of decent politicians left to rule the country? Who? The
GOP crooks? The Clinton gang? The Bidens whose son is peddling political influence in corrupt
countries? Peloisi and Schumer who are up to their eyeballs in dirty money from AIPAC and are
savaging the few clean young politicians in their own party ? There's no end to it.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only person running that has the moral authority to run this nation
and the ability to get the required votes in order to win. Doing that is going to extremely
difficult since the media is controlled by the corporations and the corporations don't want
her. Ike warned us about the military industrial complex over 50 years ago and she is the
first candidate to openly challenge its authority since that warning.
We truly have lost all sense today, from the USA to the UK, these two nations have most
certainly lost the plot, I suppose the writing was always on the wall. Most of us are for our
neighbours no matter their class, colour or religion, most of us want a civilised society
where we have the necessities in live, decent wages, health care, education. Services that
protect us. Shame the actual few keep voting against these things, whether that be from their
misery, ignorance or whatever the latest excuse is, those of us who want to return to dignity
and work towards progress must vote the charlatans out.
Western democracy is dying of greed, consumerism and power madness. Xi and Putin can't
believe their dumb luck at how the US and UK are falling apart. People in places like Eastern
Europe, Taiwan, etc., may start wondering whether they should gather winter coats and heavy
shoes and have a talk with their children.
Sleaze, greed, bigotry, and cowardice were common in both parties.
Joe and Hunter Biden Handed Trumps Dual Freebies
Goldberg's column is unusually honest for a Democrat like Goldberg. It includes two
important admissions about Joe and Hunter Biden's poor judgment in dealing with Ukrainian
matters.
As all this was happening, Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of Burisma Holdings, a
natural gas company that Zlochevsky co-founded, at some points earning $50,000 a month.
Zlochevsky might have thought he could ingratiate himself with the Obama administration by
buying an association with the vice president. All available evidence suggests he was
wrong.
We need to put Hunter Biden's $50,000 per meeting in perspective, he began receiving it in
2014, when the purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita GDP figure for Ukraine was slightly
over $8,500. In a single month, Hunter Biden received fees over six times what a typical
Ukrainian received in a year. Hunter Biden had no relevant expertise to be on the Ukrainian
firm's board of directors. The only disagreement I have with Goldberg's description is her use
of the word "earning" instead of "received." Hunter Biden does not "earn" his money. He makes
money off those who seek to get in good with his dad. The Trump children, of course, have
super-charged this sleaze.
Hunter's one real job miraculously led to his ludicrously rapid promotion to EVP of a major
bank. The bank, of course, was a major contributor to his dad. Hunter's miraculous advancement
to EVP is a typical sleazy payoff to elite politicians' kids. Both parties do it. The sole
reason Zlochevsky hired Hunter was to try to influence favorably his dad and the Obama
administration. This too is typical elite sleaze. Yes, we should remember that Trump's spouse,
children, and their spouses, make Hunter look like a highly competent saint when it comes to
cashing in on their tawdry Trump ties.
Goldberg correctly notes the modest nature of the sleaze in the Bidens' case. There is no
evidence that hiring Hunter Biden ingratiated the Ukrainian firm with the Obama administration.
There is no evidence that hiring Hunter Biden ingratiated the Ukrainian firm with Joe Biden.
Joe Biden's successful effort to fire the corrupt non-prosecutor increased the chances
that the Ukrainian government would sanction the firm. Trump's claim that the fired prosecutor
was an anti-corruption hero investigating Hunter's purported corruption is a double lie.
Trump's attacks on Joe and Hunter Biden are lies. This should not surprise us. First, Trump
always lies. Second, Joe and Hunter Biden's sketchy actions are not crimes or ethical
violations. They may be 'corrupt' in the broad sense of that word in everyday usage, but not in
the legal sense of statutes against corruption. Trump, therefore, has substituted lies for the
nuanced reality.
Sadly, the fact that Trump's attacks on both Bidens are lies does not mean that either acted
at the minimum level of integrity we should demand. Goldberg implicitly admits Joe Biden's
fundamental failure through her effort to excuse it.
It's not hard to imagine why Biden didn't press Hunter. The Biden boys and their father
had been through hell together. Hunter has said his first memory was waking up in the
hospital next to his older brother, Beau, after the car crash that killed their mother and
baby sister. He grew up to be a troubled man, his life pockmarked by addiction and
failure.
Beau died of brain cancer a few months before Biden
traveled to Ukraine to push the government to crack down on corruption. It's not shocking
that, at a moment when his family was consumed by grief, Biden wasn't inclined to confront
his surviving son.
We can agree with Goldberg's sympathy for Joe Biden while recognizing that he displayed
terrible judgment. He put himself in an obvious apparent conflict of interest when he chose to
take the lead in the Obama administration's effort to replace Ukraine's corrupt prosecutor.
Biden volunteered to take that role. There was no need to do so. The Obama administration and
the various European and international organizations that agreed with the need to fire him had
a host of effective leaders with the leverage to get him fired.
Joe Biden's Problems Dealing with Hunter Biden's Demons
The sympathetic accounts stressing Joe Biden's concerns with protecting Hunter Biden miss
three related point. The common denominator is that Joe has acted in a manner sure to harm
Hunter. The first point is the nature of Joe's special concerns about Hunter.
Mr. Biden nearly did not run for president because of the effect it would have on his
family -- and particularly on Hunter Biden and his children, according to multiple advisers
to the former vice president. Hunter Biden has struggled for years with substance addiction
and had recently gone through a very public divorce from his first wife.
As parents and humans, it is easy to sympathize with Hunter and Joe Biden. We also have to
discuss how an immensely powerful father who desperately wishes to be President needs to
address his surviving son's demons. We can start with the fact that Joe had no good answer
available. Sometimes, all the available options range from bad to terrible. Hunter is an
alcoholic. He repeatedly abuses hard drugs. He cheated on the women he professed to love. That
pattern of abuse had a number of obvious, deeply harmful implications. He lied, probably
hundreds of times, to the people who loved him most. That pattern is inherent to abusing
alcohol and drugs and cheating on the women you say you love. The pattern of lies means that no
one close to Hunter could believe him without being repeatedly deceived.
The decades-long pattern of alcoholism and hard drug abuse meant that Hunter was frequently
unable to meet his family and business responsibilities. He washed out of the National Guard
because he continued using drugs even when he knew the Guard would test him for drug use. Yes,
like millions of Americans he 'struggled' with addiction – without success. The odds that
he has put his loved ones' lives in danger by driving or providing child care while impaired
approach certainty. Given the tragic history of the Bidens that began with the fatal car crash,
this must have terrified the entire family. Hunter is not in control of his life. Drugs and
alcohol control his life. He was not loyal to the central member of his family – his
spouse. Joe knew from repeated, bitter experience that he could not rely on Hunter's word,
judgment, restraint, or moral compass.
These facts were essential for Joe to take into account when considering what to do about
Ukrainian events. He knew he could not trust whatever Hunter told him about his Ukrainian
business deal. Again, the key is to understand that Hunter's demons meant that Joe had no good
choices. Even if Joe recused himself from all Ukrainian matters, Hunter was likely to embarrass
him. Joe has stated publicly that he did not discuss Hunter's business involvements with
Hunter, which is a strategy that invites apparent conflicts of interest and scandal. Joe knew
that no company of integrity would put Hunter on its board of directors and pay him $50,000 a
meeting. Hunter had no meaningful expertise, no knowledge of Ukrainian matters, a history of
sketchy hires and promotions by those hoping to buy influence with his politically powerful and
ambitious dad, and a history of screwing up royally.
Hunter, of course, has a Yale law degree and is an adult. He knew better than to take the
Ukrainian position and cash. Throughout his adult life, however, Hunter has been willing to
take advantage of his dad's name and contacts. We can be sympathetic with Hunter's demons, but
we also need to hold him accountable for his record of terrible decisions.
Joe knew that the Ukrainian company hired Hunter for one reason – he was Joe's son.
Joe knew that was a terrible reason to hire Hunter. Joe knew that hiring Hunter indicated that
the Ukrainian firm lacked integrity. Joe chose to take the administration's lead on Ukrainian
events in circumstances he knew created an apparent conflict of interest with Hunter and his
Ukrainian firm. Joe knew that there was no reason why Hunter needed to accept the sketchy
Ukrainian firm's over-the-top largess and no reason why Joe had to take the Obama
administration's lead in implementing its Ukrainian policies.
Joe knew that the apparent conflict of interest would expose Hunter and Joe to attack by
Joe's political enemies – and that Hunter's addictions and record put Joe and Hunter in a
position where they could not effectively fight back. Joe knew Hunter was particularly
vulnerable to political attack and humiliation.
Summing it Up: Both Bidens Gifted Trump Freebies
Joe knew the action he could take that guaranteed venomous partisan attacks on Hunter was
running for president. No one has ever doubted Joe's ambition to be President. What we do not
understand is what Joe's policy passion is. His statement of why he is running cannot be true.
No one rational believes that electing Joe as President would turn Moscow Mitch into a
bipartisan legislator eager to pass Biden's legislative agenda. It is fine to yearn for a
'Kumbaya' bipartisan fantasy world. Even in that fantasy, few of us have any sense what
legislation Biden thinks McConnell would support that Democrats would not find odious.
Joe knew that the Democratic Party was rich in talent. He did not have to run for President
to save the Party or the Nation. Joe knew that he and Hunter had each gifted Trump Ukrainian
freebies. Joe knew that his infamous 'electability' mantra ignored both freebies that Trump was
sure to exploit.
The next to last thing Joe should have done was add to the incentive to attack Hunter by
creating gratuitously an apparent conflict of interest by taking the lead role in firing the
corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. The absolute last thing Joe should have done if he wanted to
protect Hunter from attack was to run for president. Joe's decision to run made it a certainty
that Trump would concentrate his attacks on Hunter – and Joe's apparent conflict of
interest in gratuitously taking the administration's lead on firing the Ukrainian prosecutor
given Hunter's cashing in on the Ukrainian firm's desire to buy influence. Joe's ambition
trumped Joe's desire to protect Hunter.
Even more bizarre, while it has been clear for months that Trump was setting up to attack
Joe and Hunter Biden's far from excellent Ukrainian adventures, Joe's response to those attacks
has been feeble. Joe's 'electability' trope has died – and Joe is the one that killed it.
If Joe cannot manage an effective response to Trump lies he has known are coming for months,
imagine what will happen in a debate when Trump hits him with unexpected smears. Trump's smears
will be lies, but few believe that Biden will prove agile and tough in counterpunching against
novel Trumpian lies.
It is Impossible to Compete with Trump or the Democrats' Unintentional Self-Parody
We need to step back for a moment and stress the unbelievable chutzpah of Trump
claiming that his passion for ending corruption explains his obscene perversion of the powers
of government to extort other nations to create – not reveal – dirt on his
political opponents. The Trump administration is the most corrupt in U.S. history. Relatives of
the corrupt cabinet members that made the Harding and Grant administrations infamous can
rejoice that their forbearers have become relatively less infamous. Trump is profoundly corrupt
and he loves his fellow corrupt autocrats like Putin. The willingness of Republican enablers to
repeat his corruption excuse for urging other nations to investigate his political opponents is
simply another in the long line of examples proving that they have betrayed America and their
oath of office.
The Obama administration, however, had its own geyser of hypocrisy when it came to the way
it phrased its demands that Ukrainian officials fire their top anti-corruption prosecutor. The
hypocrisy is not that they unjustly insisted that Ukrainian leaders fire the prosecutor.
The evidence is conclusive that the prosecutor was, at best, a coward who refused to prosecute
elite corrupt officials and CEOs. The hypocrisy is that at the same time the Obama
administration was (correctly) pointing out the need to fire prosecutors who refuse to
prosecute the most elite business fraudsters, the Obama administration's top prosecutor was
refusing to prosecute our elite fraudsters.
The key character we should be talking about is Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney
General. No one has commented on the chutzpah of the Obama administration demanding
Ukraine fire Viktor Shokin, its top prosecutor, for failing to prosecute Ukraine's most elite
criminals that had corrupted the entire system. Goldberg explains:
"Shokin was seen as a single point of failure clogging up the system and blocking
corruption cases," a former official in Barack Obama's administration told me. Vice President
Joe Biden eventually took the lead in calling for Shokin's ouster.
"We weren't pressing Ukraine to get rid of a tough prosecutor, we were pursuing Ukraine to
replace a weak prosecutor who wouldn't do his job," Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Volker in his deposition defended Mr. Biden's work in Ukraine and pointed out that the
prosecutor was corrupt and worked to shield favored people from prosecution, rather than go
after wrongdoers, according to the person familiar with his testimony.
The international effort to remove Shokin, who became prosecutor general in February 2015,
began months before Biden stepped into the spotlight, said Mike Carpenter, who served as a
foreign policy adviser to Biden and a deputy assistant secretary of defense, with a focus on
Ukraine, Russia, Eurasia, the Balkans, and conventional arms control.
As European and U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to clean up Ukraine's corruption, they
focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office.
"Shokin played the role of protecting the vested interest in the Ukrainian system," said
Carpenter, who traveled with Biden to Ukraine in 2015. "He never went after any corrupt
individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption."
That demonstrated that Poroshenko's administration was not sincere about tackling
corruption and building strong, independent law enforcement agencies, said Heather Conley,
director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a
Washington-based foreign policy think tank.
I have not found any article that points out the obvious hypocrisy of the Obama
administration demanding that a nation's top prosecutor be fired for failing to prosecute the
nation's most powerful, corrupt, and destructive elite financial criminals. The hypocrisy of
Obama praising Holder while demanding Shokin's 'head' was epic. To fix a problem one must first
admit it and resolve to fix it. Instead, Holder and Obama went with the preposterous lie that
there were no fraudulent elite bankers, so they brought no prosecutions of the elite bankers
whose frauds drove the GFC.
President Obama and Vice President Biden ignored that hypocrisy. The media continue to
ignore the hypocrisy. Trump and the Republicans ignore the hypocrisy. We need to emphasize that
in addition to refusing to prosecute elite banksters, the Trump administration has reduced
white-collar prosecutions even below Obama's pathetic record. Worse, Barr and Trump are making
it clear that while their elite contributors can loot with impunity, the Department of Justice
now threatens to prosecute corporations that oppose Trump on obviously pretextual grounds.
If Holder had prosecuted the elite banksters, Trump would have been defeated in the
election. The refusal to prosecute the banksters who gained immense wealth by leading frauds
and predation, along with the massive bank bailout, was a critical contributor to the public
rage that gave Trump his Electoral College victory.
Hillary Clinton's gratuitous decision to enrich herself through secret speeches to two of
the world's most fraudulent banks – Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank – gifted
freebies essential to Trump's election. Clinton advisers repeatedly warned her that the
Republicans would use the secret paid speeches as a mace to attack her. She and Bill Clinton
were, through tens of millions of dollars in speech fees, already wealthy. She had no financial
need to take money from two of the world's most destructive criminal enterprises. Her greed
trumped her ambition, so she ignored her advisers' warnings and did the secret speeches. Those
freebies gifted the election to Trump.
Why, given that bitter failure by the 2016 Democratic candidate who won her Party's
nomination based on her purported 'electability' would Biden gift Trump a freebie? From the
beginning of this campaign, Biden's paramount claim has not been policies, but his purportedly
unique 'electability.' The highly electable do not give the Trumps of the world freebies to
bash them during the election contest. The highly electable do not stare like a deer mesmerized
by a car's headlights when Trump lies about them and their children on a daily basis. They do
not simply counterpunch – they unleash a devastating assault on the lies and smears,
Trump's corruption, and Trump's hypocrisy.
The blowback from Trump is going to be incredible, whether he gets removed or not.
Basically the narrative will be that Democrats got foreign governments help to fuel
opposition research against him in 2016 and then used rumor and hearsay from that research to
wage a two year long investigation that ultimately debunked his culpability.
Now Democrats are impeaching him for trying to get to the bottom of that disinformation
campaign.
Correct or not, Trump thrives on victimization. His supporters will lap it up and be
angry, very angry. Democrats basically shot themselves in the foot by constantly publicizing
'evidence' that could never be substantiated which is why Mueller refused to prosecute. Worse
much of that 'evidence' was probably fabricated by foreign sources.
Sadly this has degenerated into a finger pointing exercise. With Ukraine as corrupt as it
is, Democrats could have bought any fabrications they wanted and now Trump can, too. Finding
the truth will remain a distant mirage.
Correct or not, Trump thrives on victimization. His supporters will lap it up and be
angry, very angry. Democrats basically shot themselves in the foot by constantly publicizing
'evidence' that could never be substantiated
== end ==
This is simply brilliant. IMHO.
For now, he's losing the battle for public opinion.
... ... ...
A 41 percent approval rating is obviously not good. Morning Consult released a
state-by-state poll yesterday showing Trump with net negative approval in Arizona, Iowa,
Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, all of which he won in 2016. He is hovering around the
break-even point in Florida and Georgia.
This story has a long way to go, and much of it will depend on how well Democrats conduct
their impeachment inquiry. Currently, though, things are going quite poorly for Donald
Trump.
Indeed. Among presidents, several indicted (which is what the House does, essentially),
NONE convicted by the Senate. The only prez who resigned might have been convicted, but then
received a pardon. It's an inherently political process. And this time around, it's as if
GOPsters are fighting for the very existence of their party.
The US society is too polarized for David Leonhardt's arguments to hold any value. He just
regurgitated a typical neoliberal camp propaganda.
Which, of course, resonates with True Believers in this camp. But it is not enough.
Biden's criminal extortion can't be denied. He boasted of this racket on a public occasion.
You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? First, he is prone to gaffe; second, he
probably considered himself untouchable like Mrs Clinton and other people of her circle.
In 2014 Obamoids removed the legitimate president by using the full spectre of illegal
operations, and Joe Biden became Obama viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the
coup d'état was a "crime against peace", but nobody speaks of that
Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike, the cyber-security company that was
instrumental in creating fake Russiagate accusations. People in Kiev say that CrowStrike
honcho Alperovich had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server
allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in Ukraine, not in Russia.
President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President
Mr. Zelensky.
BTW Alperovich, obsessed with his hatred of Russia, could cook the case of Russian
meddling, but it had to be ordered and utilized by somebody up the feeding chain. It might
well be Joe Biden, or Brennan.
IMHO Ukrainegate is viewed by the majority of people, who try to understand the situation
and not blindly follow MSM propaganda, as another stage of the intelligence agencies' color
revolution against Trump, as Russiagate 2.0.
Be interesting to see what, if anything, China does about trump's request for campaign aid.
"We Had the Quid, Now We Have the Quo
Ukraine has gotten its $400 million in military assistance and its visit to the White
House, where President Zelensky dutifully reported that he had felt no pressure from the
Trump administration to open an investigation into the Biden family. So this, I suppose, is
just an amazing coincidence:
'Ukraine's new chief prosecutor said Friday his office will conduct an "audit" of an
investigation into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that had recruited Hunter Biden for its
board.
Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka reiterated at a news conference Friday that he knows
of no evidence of criminal activity by Biden. He said that he is aware of at least 15
investigations that may have touched on Burisma, its owner Nikolai Zlochevsky, an associate
named Serhiy Zerchenko, and Biden, and that all will be reviewed. He said no foreign or
Ukrainian official has been in touch with him to request this audit.'
See? Ryaboshapka has been on vacation on Mars for the past few months and just got back.
And when he did, he immediately turned around to his deputy and said, "Hey, we really need to
audit the investigations of Burisma. It just seems like the right thing to do."
Private prisons, detention centers, Saudi Arabia, Russia, ... these deals were all made
before the election in 2016. Who amongst Trump's circle made them? This is what needs be
brought out.
"... This mess will also have the effect of taking (the now strangely silent) Biden off the 2020 board on the grounds of credibility or even criminality. ..."
"... Sanders and Warren will then, prematurely, have to move up the board one place and move further into the spotlight. That will suit Trump very well, and indirectly, Gabbard. ..."
"... I suspect Gabbard is being held in reserve for the VP slot, since the top slot contenders are all crazy and will need some balance on the ticket. ..."
"... I note that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form (link below) includes the following on page 2: ..."
"... I also note at the bottom of the form that the last revision date was August this year. Just before 12th August perhaps? Now that second tick box choice looks rather out of place on a whistleblower form to me. I'd be interested in seeing the previous version of the form and finding out who revised it. ..."
"... Why have 2 links, is this the old form? Maybe someone here can confirm what the pre August 2019 report form looked like. If the IGIC get caught gerrymandering their website and reporting processes to cover up this latest attempt to get at Trump we'll should see some real fireworks. ..."
"... Stephen McIntyre (a sometime commentator here on Russiagate) whose Twitter I linked to above has had his investigation of the form doctoring picked up already. He thinks it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature of the rumorblower's report. ..."
"... It appears that this is a political act to enable the steady erosion of the administrations' ability to govern effectively for as long as the circus is in town. The gamble is, among others, that the steady drumbeat of the parade of hearings, inquiries and misstatements of fact continuing through the campaign season will: ..."
"... That said, this should be sufficient evidence to warrant the IG's suspension, and investigation by an IG for the IG's office. We shouldn't be holding our breath. ..."
"... Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to investigate Biden. The fact is that there is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. ..."
"... But "Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?" Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama -- embarrassments or crimes? ..."
"... Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES the US to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause). ..."
"... I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup" movement, probably triggered more than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace with the Russians. She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in ..."
"... Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, overseeing the secretive workings of America's national security apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials file whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress. ..."
"... You may want to read this, including the linked documents, and rethink your comment: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story ..."
"... Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we're at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties. ..."
"... Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here? ..."
"... Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know. ..."
"... I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance at the ballot box and that a majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of Trump overall except for a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic. ..."
"... https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/a-dumpster-fire-on-a-garbage-barge/ "UkraineGate, son of RussiaGate..." ..."
"... I have no comment to this latest "production" of the Democratic Party. That is because Adam Schiff pushed it out of the political and into the dramatic with his rendition (he called it a parody) of a Mob Boss. ..."
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
Now that we have seen the whistleblower complaint filed by a CIA officer against President Trump, there should be little doubt
that it is a fraud and represents an abuse of the whistleblower process. I know genuine whistleblowers (e.g., Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe,
Ed Loomis, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, etc.) and have been one myself. I am familiar with the kind of information one must possess
(or should possess) in order to initiate a complaint. This complaint does not even meet the stupid standard. It is a trumped up complaint.
This CIA officer who filed the complaint has no direct evidence or knowledge. He heard things from other people. He was not party
to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript. Instead, he cited public media as "corroboration" for his allegations,
including reports by John Solomon.
The whistleblower is supposedly an analyst. Pray to God he is not. If this is an example of this clown's analytical chops then
we now know why the CIA has been on the downward slide. Rather than focus on evidence and facts, this guy relied on rumor. The egregious
conduct of the whistleblower is exceeded by the incompetence of the Intelligence Community Inspector General. When the complaint
was filed a competent professional IG would have dismissed it immediately because it was based on hearsay. If we follow his logic,
every single Presidential conversation with a foreign leader that involves discussion of a policy or issue an analyst does not support
could/should become an IG investigation. That is not an intelligence function no matter how sincerely or fiercely the complainant
believes their beef merits attention.
It would appear that the Democrats who plotted with this CIA officer were counting on Donald Trump to claim executive privilege
on his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky and, based on the same privilege, withhold the whistleblower complaint.
Whoops!! Trump did not play ball. He preempted the Democrat Kabuki theater by releasing the relevant documents and transcripts.
President Trump pre-empted the ability of the Democrats to accuse him of illegal acts by citing his refusal to turnover documents.
How can anyone claiming whistleblower status be allowed to file a complaint on something about which they have no direct knowledge?
The entire premise of the intelligence community is the access to reliable sources, i.e., people who have direct knowledge of what
they are reporting on. The Dems are in a state of flacid erectus.
To appreciate the lies of the so-called Whistleblower, let us compare his claims with what actually transpired:
The Whistleblower Claims:
The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020
U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's
main domestic political rivals.
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike I guess you have one
of your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think
you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and
I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a
man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's
very important that you do it if that's possible. . . .
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find
out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the
prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
COMMENT--At no time did President Trump say anything about the 2020 election or the need to do something to Biden to preempt
his ability to run for the Democrat nomination. Trump's request was specifically about what happened in light of Joe Biden's public
claim--I REPEAT, PUBLIC CLAIM--that he used the threat of withholding aid from Ukraine unless they fired the Ukrainian prosecutor
who was investigating the company that hired Joe's cocaine head son, Hunter.
The Whistleblower Claims:
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries,
the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader
to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid:
• initiate or continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;
• assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 20 I 6 U.S. presidential election originated
in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated
the DNC's networks in 2016; and
• meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney
General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.
What Zelensky Actually Said about Hunter and Joe Biden:
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation.
. . He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation
of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation
of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would
be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to
the United States from Ukraine as far I as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told
me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the
previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough. . . .
I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy,
there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence.
I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation.
President Zelensky is asking President Trump for more help and strongly agreeing with Trump that the U.S. Ambassador was acting
as a foe of Ukraine. To reiterate--the issue of corruption by Joe Biden and his spawn was already in public and was an issue for
Ukraine, not just Trump. Again, not one word about the 2020 election or the Democrat scramble to find a candidate. No threat by
Trump to withhold aid. No quid pro quo of any type. Joe Biden is on the record in public demanding Ukraine do what Biden wants
or else the U.S. would withhold $1 Billion dollars in aid.
The Whistleblower lied. Not a single mention was made of "locating and turning over DNC servers." This is a complete fabrication
by the so-called Whistleblower.
President Zelensky noted that his people had already spoken with Rudy Giuliani and voiced not one single concern about that. And
Zelensky said that his Government would fully cooperate with a U.S. law enforcement investigation.
Worth noting that John Solomon of the Hill is out tonight with documents that expose Joe Biden as a liar in this matter.
The heart of the Whistleblower complaint is a lie. The analyst reported hearsay but, as you can read for yourself, was not what
was said on that call.
This is an outrageous abuse by the intelligence community. The CIA cannot and should not be trusted. This analyst is an incompetent
who does not know how to distinguish between fact and suspicion.
This mess will also have the effect of taking (the now strangely silent) Biden off the 2020 board on the grounds of credibility
or even criminality.
Sanders and Warren will then, prematurely, have to move up the board one place and move further
into the spotlight. That will suit Trump very well, and indirectly, Gabbard. If this is part of some DNC strategic plan then
it's not well thought out for this reason alone.
I suspect Gabbard is being held in reserve for the VP slot, since the top slot contenders are all crazy and will need some
balance on the ticket.
Is Gabbard that craven she will allow her political future go into free fall, hooking her wagon to any of the doomed to fail
Democrat candidates. She cannot win 2020 on her own - she needs the Democrat machine behind her. But she has earned no points
to be leading it. Yet.
I note that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form (link below) includes the following on page 2:
I know about the information I am disclosing here and:
[] I have direct and personal knowledge
[] I heard about it from others
I also note at the bottom of the form that the last revision date was August this year. Just before 12th August perhaps? Now
that second tick box choice looks rather out of place on a whistleblower form to me. I'd be interested in seeing the previous
version of the form and finding out who revised it.
Why have 2 links, is this the old form? Maybe someone here can confirm what the pre August 2019 report form looked like.
If the IGIC get caught gerrymandering their website and reporting processes to cover up this latest attempt to get at Trump we'll
should see some real fireworks.
Stephen McIntyre (a sometime commentator here on Russiagate) whose Twitter I linked to above has had his investigation of
the form doctoring picked up already. He thinks it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature
of the rumorblower's report.
just found this myself. you were well ahead of the curve on this one! & it is seriously damning, imo. when you're basically forced
to bend or alter the rules in order to gain any kind of advantage, you've basically admitted that you can't win honestly...
frustrating that this information, & similar information, will simply go unmentioned in the msm. back in the day, the msm would
spin things that ran counter to the narrative. today? they simply ignore them...
Well done, and thank you to Barbara Ann and to all those, like Col. Lang, who put their time and talent to creating & maintaining
sites like this that are civic virtue in action.
It appears that this is a political act to enable the steady erosion of the administrations' ability to govern effectively
for as long as the circus is in town. The gamble is, among others, that the steady drumbeat of the parade of hearings, inquiries
and misstatements of fact continuing through the campaign season will:
A) Result in an actual conviction. (unlikely)
B) Result in a Democratic controlled Senate, House and/or Presidency (moot point)
3) Insurance policy -- gain control the Senate after 2020, so that the impeachment test is judged under new leadership. (They
probably believe this)
Rules of evidence? Due process? Cross examination? What a strange idea.
As far as his leadership of the movement/counterrevolution? Maybe he's just the catalyst-the precursor. But he saw the zeitgeist
and picked up the ball and ran with it. isn't that what demagogues do?
Not clear that this is incompetence on the complainant's part or the IG's, or the media's for that matter. While incompetence
aplenty is in evidence, that evidence speaks to how clumsily they do it, rather than to why they have reached the decision to
participate in this. That said, this should be sufficient evidence to warrant the IG's suspension, and investigation by an
IG for the IG's office. We shouldn't be holding our breath.
Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to investigate Biden. The fact is that there
is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. You don't
need to know anything about the Ukranian prosecutor or what he was doing. You don't need to know anything about Biden's son or
the son's business dealings. You just have to listen to Biden himself tell the story.
Two facts are plain in the story as Biden tells it. That he coerced compliance as to Ukraine's internal governance, and that
he used $1 billion of US foreign aid money as an instrument of extortion in order to do it. He himself says so.
President Trump says in that phone call that, "What Joe Biden did was shameful," a statement with which I cannot help
but agree. The media's comment in their followup was a stunning, "There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong."
Bill H, Joe Biden served as the point man for the Obama administration's effort to root out some of the corruption rampant in
the Ukrainian government. The IMF and EU were also pushing this. This was probably the only non-shameful aspect of our terribly
misguided and implemented policies concerning Ukraine. I'm still convinced one of the ultimate goals of that fiasco was to make
Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. Screwed the pooch on that one, didn't we?
Biden boasted of bullying the Poroshenko government into getting rid of chief prosecutor Victor Shokin, a notoriously corrupt
individual who refused to investigate corruption by oligarchs and government officials. Shokin stymied any investigation into
Mykola Zlochevsky and Burisma. His stonewalling led to a Britsh fraud and money laundering case against Zlochevsky and Burisma
to fall apart. In my opinion Zlochevsky hired Hunter Biden in an effort to protect himself from US efforts to root out corruption.
This didn't help Zlochevsky or Shokin. The US and Biden still pushed for the firing of Shokin and the investigation of Zlochevsky
and Burisma in spite of Hunter's position at Burisma.
The Trump-Guliani effort to paint the story as Joe Biden shielding his son from prosecution is a pure fabrication. Biden was
part of the whole ugly Ukraine mess orchestrated by the Nuland-Clinton crowd at DOS and fully supported by Obama, but Biden's
part in the firing of Shokin was a rare bright spot in that mess. Hunter Biden's accepting the position and money from Burisma
is an embarrassment, but far from a crime.
Now that's an interesting re-direction of focus, TTG.
But "Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?" Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which
had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama -- embarrassments or crimes?
By what right, based on rule of law and principles of UN Charter that proscribe a nation's involvement in the domestic affairs
of another nation, does the US presume to " root out some of the corruption rampant in the Ukrainian government?"
Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES
the US to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause).
K, you might want to stick with the actual language, instead of your odd interpretation stating the US is "required to interfere
in Ukraine's system of justice".
Here is the treaty language from your link:
Article 1 that "[t]he Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty,
in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters."
In my defense, I am NOT a lawyer and only threw the article out there for the consideration of others.
Like most normal Americans, I am blithely unaware of all the ways our country has been drawn into the machinations of parts
of the world where I believe we don't belong.
These spiderwebs are now two decades old. Trump walked right into them. Now at least we see them for what they are, or are
beginning to see their outline in the dark.
Artemisia, The whole Obama Ukrainian fiasco would be a fascinating subject for investigation. The decade long Orange Revolution
project was a high water mark in As Obama's point man on this project, Biden would have a lotto sweat over such an investigation.
However, his part in getting Shokin fired is not part of his problem. Shokin slow rolled the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky
for years. He even fired one of his assistants who was trying to push the investigation along. His firing was a good thing.
In spite of this, some think Trump was referring to Shokin when he talked about a "very good" and "very fair" former Ukrainian
prosecutor in his phone call to Zelensky. Trump may have fallen for Shokin's version of events.
Zlochevsky hired Hunter most likely as an insurance policy given that his father was Obama;s point man for Ukraine. He probably
hoped that would force the US and Biden to back off. Ukrainian business and politics have been notoriously corrupt since soon
after the breakup of the Soviet Union so Zlochevsky's move was in line with modern Ukrainian culture, just as Shokin's antics
as chief prosecutor.
It doesn't have to be a crime to be relevant in the context of the 2016 and 2020 elections. If we are so easily confused as to
what has actually been going on Ukraine, that both parties are hopelessly smeared in the scent of corruption and failure, what
exactly are we doing there? Why are we giving them billions?
And if you are not convinced that $50k a month in pay off for a do-nothing connected American board member is actually a crime,
what do you make about the $1.5B from the Bank of China? Is that also excusable?
You are free to loathe Trump, but right now the very fabric of our Constitution is at stake and Trump is not the only pouring
kerosene on it.
That's accurate - 100%. I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup" movement, probably triggered more
than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace
with the Russians. She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in. But I have grown cynical. This Wednesday
night article in the NY Times strengthened my outlook in such regard, especially the passage I quote below:
Quote:
Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, overseeing the
secretive workings of America's national security apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials
file whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress.
Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we're at
it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with
various parties.
Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper
what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent
experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business
or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?
Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John
Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE
firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise
$100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring
minds want to know.
Blue Peacock, I'd like to get the read out on all those conversations. So far, all we have is the "F the EU" phone call between
Nuland and Pyatt. I'd also like to get a readout of Trump's one on one discussions with Putin. I wonder how they compare with
his conversation with Zelensky.
The real deal between Hunter and Burisma was that his hiring was supposed to serve as a shield for Burisma, Zlochevsky and
Shokin. Unfortunately for them, the shield failed when the US and Biden went after Shokin in spite of Hunter's bogus seat on the
board of Burisma. Hiring Hunter was clearl an attemp to influence, just as the massive flows of donations to the Clinton Foundation
when Hillary appeared to be on the ascendency, and all the foreign and domestic money now flowing into Trump properties. It doesn't
mean it will work, but it is a clear effort to buy favor. I would not be surprised that the Chinese money to Hunter was the same
thing.
I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance at the ballot box and that a
majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of
Trump overall except for a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic.
Have we really reached the stage where an American Praetorian guard picks our President and the ballot box and electoral
college become Imperial window dressing?
I'm a left leaning Independent but I hope that the Democrats get a tremendous whipping at the ballot box in 2020. I plan to
do my small part in that.
I have no comment to this latest "production" of the Democratic Party. That is because Adam Schiff pushed it out of the political
and into the dramatic with his rendition (he called it a parody) of a Mob Boss.
Jean Paul Sartre is enjoying this wherever he may be. We are now truly living in the realm of the absurd and there seems to
be "no exit."
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower complaint, I immediately looked at
the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033. Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under
the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning
the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail or that there is no toilet tissue
in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject
of an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or his phone calls
is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more
NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at
this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt.
You wrote this: He was not party to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript .
and yet on page #3 the WB wrote this:
. I was not the only non-White House official to receive readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Dept
and IC officials were also briefed on their contents of the call ...( abbreviated for easy typing )
Am I missing something since POTUS keeps mentioning second hand info whilst it looks like the WB did have a readout?
Hearsay is any statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It can be confusing. For example. Assume I was in an
automobile accident. Moments after the accident, I said to the other driver "You ran the red light." In court, a witness who heard
my statement cannot testify about it if that testimony is being used to prove the other party ran the red light. The matter being
asserted is the other driver ran the red light. The witness is testifying to prove the light was red. It is a hearsay statement.
However, if I were claiming to have been knocked unconscious for a week by the accident, my "You ran the red light" statement
would not be hearsay if the same witness was testifying to prove I was conscious after the accident. Here, the statement is not
being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (The other driver ran a red light) but to show I wasn't knocked unconscious
by the accident.
There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule which would takes about 3-weeks of a law school evidence class to explain. I
don't have the time..
Here, the so-called whistleblower is claiming that others told him what was said during the call. That is hearsay, (a statement
used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, aka-what was said is true.) If he heard to call himself, it wouldn't be hearsay
as to what he heard. If he read the transcript, then him testifying about what he read would not be hearsay either.
Since the public have access to the transcript now the questions then becomes was Trump's request inappropriate during the call,
was there a quid pro quo, are any of the assertions by the whistleblower accurate, was this a legitimate complaint or was it a
political statement to gin up controversy?
Since the "intelligence activity whistleblower complaint" had nothing to do with an "intelligence activity" as was legally required,
the drafting and filing of this particular "intelligence activity whistleblower complaint" were political acts. They accomplished
their mission in that Trump was forced to release the call and the complaint to the public, instead of him delaying and Congress
leaking them. The complaint has resulted in what appears to be an attempt to impeach Trump, so politically it was very successful.
If it were a legitimate complaint, the DNI could look into the problem and fix it. That's why these types of complaints must
concern activities and individuals that the DNI is responsible for, so the responsible government official, the DNI, can fix the
problem. As this complaint is illegitimate, because the DNI can do nothing about the problem, no government official will investigate
because none has the authority to do so.
Instead, Congress will investigate with an eye towards impeaching the President. Will we discover truthful answers to your
questions, either from Trump or Congress' investigation? I have no idea. Personally, I doubt it.
If the matter is as serious as alleged..then how can one take anything said by Mr. Schiff seriously when he jokes about the whole
conversation , according to his own words ,after the spectacle he made.
I'm starting to see Trump as the Joker incarnate. Any sane effort to take down the deep state would have been quickly quashed,
but he has them all shooting themselves in the foot.
It is starting to appear that foreign policy under Obama and the Democrats was simply a government sponsored money laundering
operation. The gig being that a certain percentage of the money the US and other governments gave to Ukraine was then sent back
to Democratic/Liberal supporters in the form of salaries or contracts. I would imagine most NGO's who support Democratic or Liberal
governments are in part funded this way, they then in turn use the money to support their re election efforts. I would imagine
the reason the Democrats are holding up many of Trump's nominations for embassy positions is that much of this was run through
those offices.
I suppose this is how AIPAC has become such a force in American politics, money sent to support Isreal is sent back through
contracts and salaries and other assorted shenanigans. This has been going on for over 50 years, no wonder they are so entrenched
in the US government policy machine.
I could not figure out why Canada's current PM Trudeau, given his fathers penchant not to involve Canada in any foreign disputes,
especially those the US was involved with, was so eager to get involved in the Ukraine. Of course its obvious now why he appointed
Freeland who is of Ukranian background to the position of Minister of foreign affairs. They both have ties to the Atlantic Council
and other NGO's who are associated with Ukraine in some fashion. The allegation being that the Liberal party has in part been
funding its re-election bid with some of the money sent to Ukraine and funneled back the Biden way. Of course it will never be
investigated properly up here as both the senior management of the RCMP, the judicial system and the media are full of liberal
appointed or promoted hacks.
I would imagine that it goes further than the Ukraine as well, in fact any country that the US provides aid to has to be under
suspicion. I always wondered why the Dutch and the Australian's were so interested in the Ukraine and the airliner that was shot
down, bet this goes much deeper than we have been allowed to see so far.
I believe this was a running joke for a season on "Veep." It was a pretty funny one, but if you are right it was all too true
(hence as funny as Schiff's "parody").
Time for the classic Ronald Reagan face down of the Democrat politics of personal destruction smear machine .......".aw shucks,
there you go again".
And with that, Reagan ended and closed down the assaults. Time to get our of the weeds the Democrats keep planting that are
keeping far too many of us on the defensive. Just tell them ...aw shucks, there you go again.
Their modus operandi is established, their intent is confirmed, they just switch out body parts now hoping there is an Achillies
heel in there somewhere.
0) I have carefully read the 2019-08-25 "urgent concern" of the Complainant.
It is a carefully-written, very-well-documented account of what its author believes are, essentially, impeachable offenses.
It is in fact quite useful, giving such a good account of one view of things.
It is a big, big mistake to attack it merely on the grounds that it is reporting things other people have said, i.e., "hearsay".
Such attacks, while true, do not detract from its argument.
There are, however, several other ways to attack its argument.
1) First, he is clearly giving only one side of things.
It is crucial to obtain a balanced, more accurate, view of things by giving the other side of the argument, as John Solomon does
in what is linked to above.
Hopefully other countervailing views can be expressed.
2) Point out flaws in his reporting, as LJ has done so well above.
3) Ask the question "So what?"
The writer, and practically all of the media I have read, essentially assumes the equation: "US national security" = "Preventing Russian domination of Ukraine".
My view: This is not merely wrong, but insane.
What on earth does US national security have to do with the territorial boundaries or geopolitical orientation of Ukraine?
Look, in the 1970s I was very involved with supporting US national security.
What did that mean back then?
It meant, for example, preventing West Germany, with its vast industrial and scientific capabilities, from becoming part of the
Communist block.
That would really have changed the geopolitical balance between
"The First World" and
"The Second World" , to use terminology in use back then.
Does anyone really believe that Russian domination of the Ukraine would have the same effect on geopolitics as the USSR controlling
the FRG (i.e., West Germany).
Ukraine is not West Germany.
As I said, that is really insane.
Yet we see both reporters and columnists in, for example, the Washington Post claiming the Ukraine is vital to the U.S.
national interest.
See, for example this ludicrously overwrought recent David Ignatius column:
"Trump compromised our security for his gain." .
"Compromised our security"? Please, David.
4) On the corruption issue:
Think about it. If Hunter Biden's last name had been Smith, and he, even with the work and educational background that he did
have,
(see
this article for an extremely detailed, 27-page, examination of that)
had been just the son of some nondescript middle-manager in America. would he EVER have been have been put on the Board of Directors
of Burisma?
Never in a million years.
So the only reason he was put there was because of the position of his father, Joe Biden.
Now ask another question:
Assume that the Obama administration had valid reasons for wanting the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin.
Why was Joe Biden given the job of pressuring for that dismissal?
Why not, say, SecState John Kerry?
Or some other member of the administration.
Maybe even Obama himself.
Why was Joe given that job? Especially considering the connection between his son and Burisma, which was generally considered
part of the Ukraine corruption mess.
So why on earth didn't Joe say,
"Sorry, I have a family connection there. Better have someone else put the pressure on."?
Evidently WaPo and most of the rest of the media doesn't see a problem there, but it is very strange that they do not see
the problem.
5) One final point: The "dirty" point.
The media is playing a word game, by consistently, and I mean really consistently, describing any effort to examine and publicize
the issues Solomon raised above as "Dirt" , as in "digging up dirt".
Why prejudice the effort to shed some sunlight on such issues as "digging for dirt".
After all WaPo 's motto is "Democracy dies in darkness".
So why call the effort to shine some light on the Biden/Ukraine connection as "digging for dirt"?
The hypocrisy is plain for me to see, if not for the people at WaPo .
I have to say, I have become rather a pariah since shifting reluctantly (post-election) into the Trump camp. My spouse and
I absolutely cannot talk about it at all, since the last time we did I ended up spending several days camping out at a friend's
place. I have one close friend from college who has taken a similar trajectory and we are like shipwrecked soulmates in the midst
of a violent storm (that doesn't end!).
It means the world to me to be able to read so many well-thought out posts and comment threads. It is much better then Twitter
(I have exiled myself from Facebook).
Persuasive, but it will only convince those who wish to be convinced. Your number 3 is right on. It is insane beyond words. Possibly
downright evil. On why use Biden? I guess because it is the executive branch. Obama had washed his hands of Ukraine and all things
Russia related, so his supporters say, having abnegated to State, Defense and CIA. Poor excuse, but that's the tale that's been
going around. So sending the VP is a way to put some real sting into it? So it will be said.
But your point is exceedingly well taken. Pat Buchanan, while going over some of your ground, cleverly avoids attempting a
rigorous demonstration in favor of showing the effective political damage being done.
Quote:
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why
was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor
whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of the potential corruption of Hunter Biden,
and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics
between now and New Hampshire.
Endquote
There are some very astute remarks in that column's comment thread
.
My question is why this Ukraine brouhaha NOW? The timing of why the media wurlitzer is spun is always interesting to me.
Trump's call with Zelensky took place in July just after Mueller published his report. Trump suspects that folks in Ukraine
may have information regarding Crowdstrike and the DNC server "hacking". So it is a legitimate request IMO considering attacks
on him, his kids and his administration around Russia Collusion. The whistleblower made his complaint now. Why? Who actually wrote
the complaint as Robert Willmann notes in an earlier thread it was likely a lawyer. It seems it was coordinated with the House
Democrats and the MSM as they both latched on to it with similar talking points immediately in a highly coordinated manner.
My speculation is that they didn't count on Trump immediately declassifying and releasing it to the public and further going
on the attack along with Rudy to paint Biden and his son in the vortex of potential corruption.
Now we are back to he said, she said and the usual confusion. It would be good to read opinions on what was the goal here as
the bar to an impeachment conviction is very high. No President in the history of our country has been convicted by the Senate.
What were the political motives for the Russia Collusion redux with this Ukraine "quid pro quo"?
Sundance thinks Lawfare wrote it. The 'whistleblower' is simply the delivery platform for their latest weapon. Given the legalistic
style, their involvement in Russiagate and the similar modus operandi this seems a reasonable guess. Lawfare themselves (who are
clearly Resistance central) are already trumpeting success.
Why now? The Kavanaugh smear fell apart. This was the next Trump "scandal" on the Democrat's Roladex. There will be more until
Nov 2020, and there after. We know this now, so no cause for alarm. Even Saul Alinksy warned about over-playing your hand. Democrats
have over-played their hand.
IMO the Clinton apparat has been at the root of much that has happened. It still exists and hopes for a stalemate in the Democratic
nomination process.
The irony here is that Trump originally beat the Republicans. You know, Bush/Cheney and company. If the Democrats had played by
the assumption that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and tried to at least work around Trump and let him stew in his own juices,
rather than taking the low road and just throwing as much mud as possible, they would be in far better shape than they are. What
if a Democrat ever becomes president, ever again? How would they govern, given the destruction to the system, they are engaging
in? It is much easier to tear down, than build up.
If I were to guess the direction of this country, it will be that disaster capitalism/predatory lending comes home to roost and
those with the largest piles of treasuries, likely bought pennies on the dollar, when the debt bubble bursts, will be trading
them for the remaining public assets, facilitated by those functionaries who know who their future employers are.
Then we find out what true oligarchy is.
What is the back story about breaking news reports that Whistleblower statute and complaint form was very recently revised that
now allows second-hand reporting.
Was there also a problem with back-dating this complaint to slip under the new policy? So much for the "hearsay" rebuttal under
these very new, brand new, new guidelines.
John Solomon Has another article on The Hill. The gist being:
"Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents -- many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its
legal troubles -- conflict with Biden's narrative.
And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma's
legal troubles and stop prosecutors' plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
A year after his appointment, the replacement prosecutor dropped the case against Burisma. Now Ukraine is in the clutches of
the IMF. This looks like a future of austerity and privitization of the countries resources. The Bidens are just the public faces
of a deeper corruption.
"... The intemperate comments of an imperial-minded candidate for the presidency ..."
"... The democrat coup/impeach/coup machine suffers is bi-polar disorder. Every they way fill the military industry complex trough! In their war manic state they supress freedom fighters, and arm their jailers, in their war depress state they support rioters in Hong Kong. If Donbass rebels were in Macao they would get US support, in Dobass the US will suppress freedom. ..."
"... With Ukraine, because the democrat neocons want to surround Russia, US national security arms Ukriane to forcibly put down Donbass as they attempt some form of "self determination". ..."
"... In the case of Hong Kong because US is enemy to the PRC (Red China at Menzie Chinn blog) the US is all for self determination, like Hitler was for pulling Sudetenland out of Czechoslovakia in 1938! ..."
"... This bipolar morality fits with deep state surveillance on Trump in 2016 and in 2019 claiming Trump doing it to Biden so that Trump/DoJ cannot fight corrupt (all) democrats ever! ..."
Is Time for the United States to Stand Up to China in Hong Kong
Tweets aren't enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its
commitments -- and it will respond when China does not.
By ELIZABETH WARREN
It Is Time for the United States to Stand Up to China in Hong Kong
Tweets aren't enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its
commitments -- and it will respond when China does not.
By ELIZABETH WARREN
[ Shocking and appalling; unethical and immoral; discrediting. The intemperate comments of an imperial-minded candidate for the presidency. ]
The democrat coup/impeach/coup machine suffers is bi-polar disorder. Every they way fill the
military industry complex trough!
In their war manic state they supress freedom fighters, and arm their jailers, in their
war depress state they support rioters in Hong Kong. If Donbass rebels were in Macao they would get US support, in Dobass the US will suppress
freedom.
With Ukraine, because the democrat neocons want to surround Russia, US national security
arms Ukriane to forcibly put down Donbass as they attempt some form of "self
determination".
In the case of Hong Kong because US is enemy to the PRC (Red China at Menzie Chinn blog)
the US is all for self determination, like Hitler was for pulling Sudetenland out of
Czechoslovakia in 1938!
This bipolar morality fits with deep state surveillance on Trump in 2016 and in 2019
claiming Trump doing it to Biden so that Trump/DoJ cannot fight corrupt (all) democrats
ever!
This "corruption" meme is simply hilarious. Even the deplorables cannot believe it is true.
Well, other than the brain dead.
"On Friday, though, the GOP Ratchets Up Pressure on Biden and Schiff narrative train got
derailed a bit. One blow was delivered by CNBC's Eamon Javers, who asked Trump the simple
question of which other cases of alleged corruption he is pursuing besides the one that
involves his potential 2020 election opponent. In reply, Javers got what by Trump standards
is a straight-up acknowledgment of having been stumped:
MSNBC
✔
@MSNBC
Replying to @MSNBC
WATCH: @EamonJavers: "Have you asked foreign leaders for any corruption investigations
that don't involve your political opponents?"
President Trump: "You know, we would have to look"
Then Republican Utah Sen. Mitt Romney articulated the implication of that non-answer in
what, by Romney standards, was a devastating frontal attack:
Mitt Romney
✔
@MittRomney
When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China's investigation is
his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains
credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated.
171K
9:02 AM - Oct 4, 2019
Mitt Romney
✔
@MittRomney
Replying to @MittRomney
By all appearances, the President's brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to
Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.
84.5K
9:02 AM - Oct 4, 2019
Romney is stating the obvious: All the available evidence -- including the evidence
supplied by Trump -- says the president tried to use Ukraine to do a political hit job for
him; none of the evidence supports the alternative theory that this was part of an earnest
anti-corruption crusade. But the fact that Romney is the one who stated it provides a tiller
for evenhanded journalists and non-zealot voters to hold amid the swirling storm of alternate
reality disinformation that the rest of his party is emitting.
The [neo]liberal mob was standing around with their torches and pitchforks in a state of
shock.
Doctor Mueller, the "monster hunter," had let Trumpenstein slip through his fingers.
The supposedly ironclad case against him had turned out to be a bunch of lies made up by
the Intelligence Community, the Democratic Party, and the corporate media.
Russiagate was officially dead . The President of the United States was not a Russian
secret agent. No one was blackmailing anyone with a videotape of Romanian prostitutes peeing
on a bed where Obama once slept.
All that had happened was, millions of liberals had been subjected to the most elaborate
psyop in the history of elaborate deep state psyops which, ironically, had only further
strengthened Trumpenstein, who was out there on the Portico balcony, shotgunning Diet Cokes
with one hand and shaking his junk at the mob with the other.
"... Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion. He famously admitted that: ..."
"... The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote: ..."
"... The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but nobody speaks of that, noticed Joe Lauria . ..."
"... Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. ..."
"... People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia. President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr Zelensky. ..."
"... The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents' chat had been published ..."
"... How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing cricket. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. ..."
"... People in Kiev say that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian president may default on IMF loans. ..."
"... The Ukrainians like to back winners; once they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance, the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps? ..."
"... "Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia respectively. ..."
"... You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his country and the world. ..."
"... Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing. Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class. Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people will. No one likes being cheated or betrayed. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... Adam Schiff received campaign contributions from a Ukrainian donor/host at a fundraiser. All solid citizens, especially the host, an arms dealer. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi also received funding for her campaign in the Ukraine and other Democrats may have as well. ..."
The Borderlands of the Ukraine have been a decisive battlefield for centuries. Here
Stockholm, Berlin and Moscow vied for dominance. Karl XII had lost here to Peter the Great;
Stalin defeated Hitler; now the Clintonites are likely to suffer in the Ukraine their ultimate
defeat. The Democrats had made their biggest political mistake of the century in attacking
Trump for the Biden affair -- that is, if the Americans retain any common sense.
Vice-President Biden extorted millions of dollars in personal bribes from the vulnerable
Ukrainian client state. When this sordid affair came under investigation, he blackmailed
Ukrainians, using his position and American taxpayer money to force the sovereign state to fire
its Attorney General for investigating the bribes.
Instead of covering their face in shame and dismissing Biden as a potential party candidate
in the 2020 race, the Dems led by the superannuated Mrs Pelosi decided to impeach the President
for uncovering this rogue. In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to
save a criminal by attacking the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning . This was
the model for the Dems in their impeachment attempt.
Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion.
He famously admitted
that:
I said, I'm telling you [the Ukrainian leaders], you're not getting the billion dollars. I
said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about
six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they
put in place someone who was solid at the time.
The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated
the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP
Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote:
"U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners
LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a
month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President
Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with
Russia."
The fired prosecutor Mr Viktor Shokin
said that Biden fils had been under investigation. After he was dismissed due to
Biden père interference, the money continued to pour out of poor Ukrainian pockets
to well-stuffed Biden coffers. My Kiev acquaintances had a memory of a good-for-nothing young
man, keen on coke and broads, who by himself would never get such a salary.
You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? He considered himself untouchable like Mrs
Clinton and other people of her circle. Mischievous President Trump decided to prosecute Biden
for bribery and extortion, as if he were an ordinary mortal. This was a direct threat to the
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats, Liberals,
Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State). This challenge caused them to
abandon caution and to start a furious pre-emptive campaign against cocky Trump.
Their accusation is outright ridiculous: they claim Trump's intention to bring Corrupt Joe
to justice was criminal per se , as Biden was a likely contender for the Dem nomination.
As it happens, the US Constitution didn't find it fit to provide likely contenders with full
immunity for past and future crime prosecutions. It's just the Clintonites were used to be
above the law. Indeed, for three years President Trump avoided to touch them. Crimes of Mrs
Clinton were well known, from the simple affair of the email server to the Libya murders.
It was expected victorious Trump would unleash the law against the defeated dowager for Mrs.
Clinton's role in the Obama administration's decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency
to buy a uranium mining company . Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the
Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of
corruption, reported the New
York Times . The Clintonites saved the old lady's skin by starting the Russiagate
hoax. In 2016 election debate Trump told Clinton that, if he was in charge of the nation's
laws, "you'd be in jail". But a year later he was in charge, and she wasn't in jail, not even
charged. The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with
Russia did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence.
Now the Clintonites decided to repeat their feat and began impeachment procedure hoping it
will keep Trump busy and away from uncovering the Ukrainian Hell's Kitchen.
What actually had happened in the Ukraine? In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime
change in this former Soviet republic. They removed the legitimate president by using the full
spectre of illegal operations. The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their
viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but
nobody speaks of that, noticed
Joe Lauria . They had turned Ukraine against Russia and instigated the civil war in the
East of the poor country, despite strong efforts of president Putin to keep Russia out of
Ukrainian turmoil. But they also gave a thought to personal profiteering, like they did in
Russia in 1990.
Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and
proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice
people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. They became involved in 2016
election campaign on the Clintonite side. There is no doubt VP Biden was the man who directed
this "foreign involvement in the US elections". The obliging Ukrainians delivered to him the
dirt on Paul Manafort, and Manafort went to jail.
The Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike , the cyber-security company that was
instrumental in accusing Russia of meddling. Its founder and head, a Russian Jew and American
citizen Dmitry Alperovich is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max
Boot. People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single
server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia.
President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr
Zelensky.
The subject of the server makes many people in the Clintonite camp extremely nervous. They
already
marked it with "conspiracy" marker, meaning you may not touch it. In another "conspiracy
debunking" item they
created a straw man, saying "the notion that there is some missing "server," and that the
server might exist somewhere -- like in Ukraine -- has no basis in reality. The DNC's network
consisted of many servers and computers". However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC
server, but the server allegedly used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language
traces, and it was presented as a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the
Ukraine also use Russian as their working language, and this allowed the Russia-hating Jew an
opportunity to create the whole chain of "proofs" of Russian hackers' activity with fancy
names. Recovery of the server would put paid to the whole myth of Russian hacking, and would
make the Clintonite case untenable.
Alperovich, obsessed with his hatred, could cook the case of Russian meddling, but it had to
be ordered and utilized by somebody up the feeding chain, most probably Joe Biden. And now Joe
Biden, the real criminal, who took bribes and blackmailed the friendly state officials, who
orchestrated foreign involvement in the US elections, went on to become the leading contender
for Dem party.
The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate
with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents'
chat had been published. But even if it were sterling truth, it would be business as usual for
the US. You probably remember the threats of cutting aid that were issued by the US
representative in the UN in order to force sovereign states to vote for Israel. The execrable
Nicky Haley
said , 'The US will be taking names', and Donald Trump
added his own threats to cut aid.
How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think
Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing
cricket.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are
tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In
the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky
promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite
camp.
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund,
the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. Just this year, Kiev has to
pay six billion dollars to the IMF to remain solvent, and IMF refused to refinance it. The
loans were mainly stolen by the gang of the former President, Mr Poroshenko. People in Kiev say
that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters
of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian
president may default on IMF loans.
Kolomoysky is also the only oligarch who is not in bed with the liberals. The balance of
power in the Ukraine is not in favour of Trumpers. The Ukrainians like to back winners; once
they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will
make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his
goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance,
the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps?
They even fiddle with the idea of Mrs Hillary Clinton running again and winning this time.
The Ukrainian oligarchs, and first of all Mr Victor Pinchuk, a Jewish billionaire from Dnepro
city, No. 1 among the rich Ukrainians, would do anything for her. He contributed many millions
to her fund; he finances the Atlantic Council, the Clintonite think-tank, fighting against
Russia and Euro-sceptics. He is 'the wealthy businessman' Trump referred to in his talk with Mr
Zelensky. Judging by Trump's interest in the Ukrainian server, the President is aware that the
old lady is still able to do some mischief, and his promise to take her to jail is still
unfulfilled.
It is possible in the presidential race 2020, the Dems will use drafting technique, as the
long-distance runners (or bikers, or cross-country skiers) do. The first leading contender (in
our case, Biden) would get the flak, get exhausted, and in the last moment he would withdraw
from the race yielding the nomination to his well-rested comrade, be it Warren or Clinton or
whoever. Bearing that in mind, Trumpers could keep some of the ammo they have on Biden (and
there is a lot to find in the Ukraine) until (or rather if) he gets the nomination.
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one might
conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the Clintonite
Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA and
FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
The key mode of operation: aggressively, and very loudly, accuse your opponents of
whatever crimes you are committing. Flip reality upside down.
The mainstream media have thoroughly obstructed all lines of investigation into facts
which contradict the Clintonite narrative. And Silicon Valley is working furiously to shut
down any discussion in alternative media on the Internet which addresses these issues.
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United States?
Great summary. There is also that one billion dollars the Biden clan got from China. More
from my blog:
Jun 7, 2016 – The $5 Billion Coup
I thought the claim that the USA spent $5 billion to organize a coup to take control of
Ukraine was a wild estimate. I recently found this 2013 video where the semi-covert coup
manager from Hillary's State Department, rabid neocon Victoria Nuland, spouts nonsense and
states that $5 billion was spent! I love the Chevron sponsorship symbol in the
background.
For those unfamiliar with the massive Uranium one Clinton bribery scandal, here is a hot
story that disappeared from our news, from my blog:
Dec 16, 2018 – Rogue FBI
As a follow-up to my December 2nd blog post, our major media failed to report that last
week:
"The Justice Department and FBI have missed a Wednesday deadline to provide information
about the government's mysterious raid on a former FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower's home
last month. Sixteen FBI agents on Nov. 19 raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain, who
reportedly gave the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) documents related to the
Uranium One controversy and potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton.
The documents in question allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate
possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian
nuclear company. Its subsidiary purchased Canadian mining company Uranium One in 2013.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, whose panel has oversight of
the Justice Department, penned a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice
Department IG General Michael Horowitz, requesting information on the justification for the
raid. Grassley gave Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12 to respond to his request. That deadline
has come and gone, and neither the FBI nor DOJ has produced any documents or response."
Why would a coke head like Hunter Biden, with a string of failed ventures with shady
characters and living in the US have been sought out for a position on the board of a Ukraine
gas company?
Even "if" Biden did not secure that job for is son and his son was 'sought out' by the
Ukraine gov or the company owners because they thought that contact would help them
Then Biden is still guilty of putting his son's advancement above obvious 'conflicts of
interest' in letting him assume the job.
Don't know about others but when I was growing up in teen years I was constantly schooled
by my father to 'not put myself in ' company or situations' that could lead to my being
associated with anything questionable that might happen.
I would think that should have been how Biden viewed his son taking the Ukraine company
position..
But then again Biden is both stupid and without any ethics. And so much for his free
speech support LOL
The Biden Campaign Is Demanding That TV Execs Stop Booking Guiliani
During this time, Hunter Biden was busy making a living in his father's wake.
He began working at MBNA bank, one of Delaware's largest employer, in 1996. He left to become
a lobbyist in 2001, though he continued receiving consulting fees from the bank. For years,
beginning in the late '90s, Joe Biden had been a top Democratic supporter of a controversial
bankruptcy bill that aided issuers of credit card debt, like MBNA, by making it harder for
borrowers to seek bankruptcy protections. The consulting fees to Hunter continued until 2005,
when the bankruptcy bill finally passed with Joe's support.
At his new firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also lobbied for the music-sharing
service Napster while the Judiciary Committee, on which Joe sat, took on digital music piracy
and represented public universities seeking congressional earmarks. The Bidens have said that
Hunter avoided lobbying his father. In 2008, The Washington Post reported that, as a senator,
Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became
his running mate and that another lobbyist at Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for
an earmark for the University of Delaware
Biden and his wife, Jill, have set about providing for themselves, earning more than $15
million in the two years following the end of his vice presidency in early 2017"'
Do me a favor did Biden say to Obama ????? .." Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in
earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became his running mate and that another lobbyist at
Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for an earmark for the University of Delaware"
So some Jewish oligarchs are for the Clintons (Biden Dems etc) and other Jewish oligarchs are
for Donald the Orange (Repugs etc) It seems uncannily just like the situation in the US with
good ole Sheldon and Haim. A cynic might even suggest that it was a type of a pincer movement
or a case of good cop/bad cop. Either way I suspect than none of the aforementioned
characters give a rodents patootie about Joe Six-pack and the American people.
Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an
enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful
bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine.
Really? Sure he is agains bankers. Who are you fooling Shamir? Come on, get real. This is
intra-Jewish affair. Kolomoysky is as bad for Ukraine as the Clintonites.
"In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to save a criminal by attacking
the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning. This was the model for
the Dems in their impeachment attempt."
I want to be careful here because many people don't grasp the value of what the justice is
really all about. At it core the Constitution is by design intended to limit government
intrusion. The Miranda expectation is not a dodge. Its primary if fencing the abridgement of
a citizens personal space on a whim. In reality Miranda is probably not strong enough. It is
not a trick to cover up criminal behavior.
And the democrats call for impeachment is not in any way related to Miranda, not as simile
or metaphor.
" The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with Russia
did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence."
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one
might conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the
Clintonite Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA
and FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
"I now think that Trump WILL be impeached in the House."
-- Richard Spencer, Sept. 27, 2019
More from Richard Spencer on the Ukraine impeachment matter:
[Hide MORE]
"[Trump] still has 90% approval among Republicans. These Senators, though, they'll go with
the wind. They certainly could do it [vote to remove Trump from office], but something
dramatic would have to change."
"Trump will be impeached but will be let off by the Senate, and he will likely benefit
from this process because we're going to be talking about this [impeachment drama] and kind
of defending him, not criticizing him. So I think Trump ultimately will benefit."
"I'm rather shocked. This whole Ukraine thing is so weak . The Mueller and
Russia hysteria has apparently gone out the window, or it's kind of background to this. We've
now moved on to this -- phone call."
"I've seen this transcript I can only look at and laugh. It's basically Trump being Trump.
He is praising this comedian that won a miraculous victory "
"In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime change in this former Soviet republic. Ukraine
became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in Ukraine.
They instigated the civil war"
-- Let them rot in hell for the destroyed lives of the innocent civilians.
In a morally healthy society, these criminals would suffer anathema and ostracism. In a
morally unhealthy society well.
Kolomoysky is the beneficial owner of the company, Burisma Holdings, that Hunter Biden
supposedly worked for. All the MSM is pretending that the previous owner, Mykola Zlochevsky,
is the one who hired Biden – an obvious lie. The Wikipedia supports this Zionist lie:
It is important to realize that this company has acquired licenses to exploit Ukraine's
largest gas field through dishonest means. The bribes paid to father Biden are much greater
than what the son received. In any case, these bribes are a tiny fraction of the value of
these gas fields.
This gas company is in a position to greatly profit from any deterioration in
Russian-Ukrainian relations.
An extension and exacerbation of the civil war in the east of that country will lead to a
shortage of gas. Shortage of gas leads to higher prices for consumers. War-profiteering at
the expense of the poorest country in Europe.
@Sean
McBride Sean, I agree with what you say – mostly. The fact that we are reading Mr
Shamir's excellent appreciation here shows that not all Westerners are mugs, though.
The bigger question is: how much does it really matter what crimes and tricks are played
in Washington? I am reminded of J.G. Ballard's superb short story "Manhole 69", about an
experiment to see if men could be treated and trained to do without sleep. They succeed, but
are found one morning in a state of catatonic withdrawal. To them, the whole world has shrunk
and collapsed down to a tiny bubble surrounding each person's body, so that – with no
external source of stimuli – their minds shut down.
Similarly, the more fascinated the Swamp creatures get with their own navels, the less
their intrigues matter to anyone outside their little personal bubble. By and by, they may
look up to notice that the world has gone on without them.
Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no
way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from
those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure" Robert LeFevere
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery?
For that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be
bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that it
might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be
done; you cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting
for one "good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank Chodorov, Out of
Step (1962)
"Joe Biden , the Hawk " by Branko Marcetic in the Jacobin Magazine , " If you're looking for
a president with a track record of foreign intervention , expanding the surveillance state
and steadfastly backing Israel despite its war crimes Joe Biden is your guy ."
@EliteCommInc.
Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda.
The mention of Miranda is in reference to a fictional screenplay. What else you got over
there?
@NoseytheDuke
True (and funny). George Eliason has written a couple of pieces concerning the recent history
of the Ukraine connection with the US deepstate and its campaigns such as Russiagate and the
current impeachment push:
[Crowdstrike's] founder and head, a Russian Jew and American citizen Dmitry Alperovich
is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max Boot.
Try as I might, I was hard pressed to confirm the ethnic origin of Dmitry Alperovich. But
Israel Shamir was kind enough to put that mystery to rest. Thanks Israel!
"Make no mistake about it: UKRAINEgate is very real, but not the false narrative pushed by
the media. Trump tricked the Democrats into blowing wide open their own Ukraine scandal under
Obama. Just how big is that? It will expose BIDENgate. Which will expose the real RUSSIAgate
conspiracy. Which will then expose Clinton's EMAILgate and SERVERgate
scandals. Which will in turn expose Deep State and their International Banking Cartel
sponsors. Even the Illuminati hidden hand may be revealed as never before along with the
forever veiled Black Nobility."
-- Intelligence Analyst & Former U.S. Army Officer
I'm not a "Q" follower or one who believes Trump is some kind of 5D chess player, but for
the life of me I could not see how UKRAINEgate would not come back to bite the Democrats in
the ass. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the above statements are true. http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=128744#more-128744
The Ukraine is a corrupt zionist controlled government just like the zionist corrupt ZUS
government so it is no surprise that the zionist backed Bidens would be feeding at the trough
just as they feed off the American taxpayers, corruption is as corruption does and that is
how zionists control governments.
Why would a coke snorting loser like Hunter Biden be given millions from a Ukrainian company
when he doesn't even speak the language? Same reason the Clintons used to get $500k for
"speeches". Give us a millions to our fraudulent charity and we will give you millions of tax
payer money.
@APilgrim" .There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or
coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it's not just unnecessary,
but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that's increasingly true as technology
advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to
order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous .":
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United
States?
No it's already an upgraded Owellian regime that relies on 24/7 brainwashing. The Soviet
regime could repress people through violence or the threat of it. They could never convince
people that there really are 52 sexes or the need to bring in tens of millions of illegals
and replace the population with foreigners.
Bidengate is killing the blind Dems. Will he be in the Oct 15 debate or forced out before
that? For once, it may be worth watching as the other Dems will profit when he is out. Like
vultures they will seek his campaign donors and voters. The lying mainstream media can't make
this pig look pretty. Biden was already going to lose based on his failing mental abilities.
Now, he is really toast. The phony impeachment claims are killing the Dems also. It seems
they are suicidal this election and want to make SURE Trump wins in a landslide.
An 'independent' Ukraine is nothing more than a preponderantly Jewish directed outpost for
the Anglo-Zionist Empire. It is always going to be raped, and then charged for the service of
the rape, by those who run the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
@Whitewolf
Correct. The WASP-created and currently WASP+Jews administered Anglosphere, the Anglo-Zionist
Empire (which controls Western Europe and all of Latin America it wants to control), is today
much worse off in many ways than the USSR ever was.
Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?
What no one is talking about here is the much bigger crime against humanity that the
Obama administration committed by engineering the catastrophic Ukraine Civil War. Not only
did Biden's warmongering tear apart that country, that continuing war served to re-start
the Cold War with Russia. How calamitous for the world community of nations is that
intentional outcome designed by the Obama-Biden-Clinton-Nuland war-making team?!
Which means that the recent UKRAINEgate is really about stifling Trump's initiative to
get to the bottom of BIDENgate because that will inevitably lead to the root cause of the
real UKRAINEgate, not the current fake one. It ought to be apparent how the Left is
co-opting real scandals with fake scandals by even using the same memes and MSM
emotionally-charged language. Deep State knows that the ensuing confusion is simply far too
great for the average American voter to comprehend as the true story is so obfuscated by
the CIA-controlled Mockingbird Media.
Clintonites? A clintonite would be a follower and not an equal partner in crimes. And
Clintons maybe everything else but powerful they are not. Let's call it the Cabalites. For
they are members of a cabal (not to be confused with Jews though certainly there are Jews in
it along with a ton of non Jews) and equal participants in crimes such as Biden corruption.
Biden was/is Obama errand boy and as such got paid his share of the thirty pieces of silver.
It's a cabal, deep and secretive with octopus like reach that has the government cornered
with Democrats and their counterparts, the Republicans!
This remains to be seen. I'm not optimistic considering the massive propaganda
loudspeakers being brought out to steer the narrative. The Clintons and Biden, among others,
have been irredeemably corrupt their entire lives yet have had a sense of impunity
throughout, a well grounded sense since nothing has ever touched them. The rottenness of all
of it makes one's head swim. All of them have also been fond of committing war crimes
overseas, killing and displacing millions of people everywhere, which is even worse than
their financial flimflam. American democracy, what a joke, way different in reality than the
garbage they taught us in school.
Only slow people, aka the willing slaves called the voting class, believe a difference exists
between democrats and republicans. The rich know better.
The US staged a Nazi coup in Ukraine and wanted to station the navy in the Crimea. Before
that, the US had the dying Soviet Union hand over Crimea to Ukraine for free, out of love of
Russia.
Clearly both Republicans and Democrats see the law as a tool to enrich themselves and harm
their "enemies."
@Alfred
Shamir, and now you, mention bribes to Joe Biden. Is there documentation in one of your links
about those bribes? (Shamir cited nothing.) I don't doubt it, but can't share empty
allegations. (D0es Shamir think this is common knowledge? Or does he just never back up his
claims.)
This is such a hoax conspiracy that I question why they allow this op-ed to be printed.
Without bank and tax records to prove it , why would you make these fictitious claims? You' d
be better off tracking Trumps financials and building on those facts. Good luck with that.
@Bastien
McCormick Was the de-nuclear treaty enforced by both US and Russia over Ukraine a US plot
as well?
Face it, a jew currently runs Ukraine, the national socialists are bidding their times in
every parts of the world, waiting for a chance to save this post-1945 world.
"Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda."
There is nothing in this matter that can be remotely associated with Miranda. By
referencing Miranda as like the collusion accusations the author is making the comparison
between the two. Such as lawyer uses Miranda to draw attention away from the case.
That is a false comparison, even if the person is actually guilty of the accusation.
Miranda says, the state cannot proceed to abuse a citizens ignorance of the process to
prosecute, The citizen is entitled to know how to protect himself/herself from state
authority – period. It is a legal standard.
There is no legal standard for the collusion accusation. It is not linked even remotely to
the Constitutional protections of citizens. Your response is circular self reinforcing and
flawed logic coming and going. The liberals are not claiming a legal standard -- they are
merely slinging mud. Because even if the president were in fact colluding, it would not
provide a legal basis that the liberals and democrats lost the election as result.
Furthermore, even if they colluded by sharing information that alone is not a crime.
Unlike collusion, Miranda is a legal standard that upon violation moots a case because of
the governments abuse of power --
nothing at all like manufacturing a lie to cover incompetence, face saving or illegal
activity (including conspiring with foreign powers to start violent revolutions among
sovereign nations, i.e. Syria, the Ukraine, Libya, etc.) in office, or ineffective campaign
choices.
The collusion argument does reflect the kind of circular rhetoric in defending this
authors false comparison.
For the lovers of the IQ : the collective , national , IQ of white blond ukraruinas , polacks
, and other ex-soviets specimens is much much lower than mexicans . Puro pendejos .
Did anyone actually believe that Biden is not corrupt? Or that Ukraine is not corrupt? Or
that Porky and his appointees are not corrupt? If these people exist, they must be either
remarkably naïve or simply retarded.
@anon It's
untrue that Lutsenko, appointed by his buddy Porky, has no legal experience. Yes, he has no
legal education. But he spent some time in jail, which counts as legal experience.
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State).
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites.
a "maverick" eh?
Kind of like John McCain, huh?
As Truth3 mentioned,
"Kolomoisky is one of Rothschild's front men."
Yep.
However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC server, but the server allegedly
used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language traces, and it was presented as
a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the Ukraine also use Russian as
their working language
What's with all this misdirection?
Assange has all but said the DNC data was given to him by Seth Rich, [RIP]
There was no 'Russian (or Ukrainian) hacking. Rich was pissed that 'corrupt Hillary' had
shut out Bernie in the primaries. He had a motive.
What, pray tell- would be the motive of the corrupt, Obama State Dept. installed-
Ukrainians, (working for the Clintonites) to expose Hillary's corruption? (and their
own)?
Eh?
"Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold
of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia
respectively.
The "maverick' is conducting himself in perfect, parallel alignment with the "Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State", (i.e. the
Clintonites) that hate Putin's guts, and would like to see him dead.
In fact, there are deep ties between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the
'Maverick'.
The Maverick owns the television station where Zelensky performed his comedy routine.
I'd say in all probability that Zelensky is the Maverick's boy. Which would go a long way
toward understanding why Putin is staying at arms length from the comedian.
All of this rot and corruption and its effects on ZUS politics is why I looked forward to
getting some insights from Mr. Shamir.
@Sean
McBride Spencer might say some things that are valid and even things that pro-Whites
agree with but he's still controlled opposition just like David Duke.
Its common knowledge that most politicians are crooked lying thieving bastards but the
brazenness of Biden is truly astounding. His boasting about the Ukraine affair should cost
him 10 years in prison if there was truly justice in America. But just like Hildabeast
Clinton they know no matter what they say or do they are a protected class in this God
forsaken country.
congrats issy, marvelous work.. while i read your column, i was also watching the clive owen
film "the international". i couldn't tell which one's more thrilling; possibly yours, because
your story is real!
all these show, that the fight between "patriots and globalists" (as pres. trump put it in
his UN speech: "the future belongs to patriots, not to globalists!") is flaring up.
globalist agendas like climate change and the EU are on the retreat, nevertheless
globalists seem not to leave the arena without bitter fighting.
patriots may be the last hope for earth to survive in the form known to us, but they are
more vital for america herself. why? -- because the "democraps and rebloodicans" with their
globalist agendas were growing to be disgusting in the eyes of many ordinary american people
before trump. remember, trump is a guy from the outside of the "political establishment",
don't get fooled by that he imitates the "rebloodican"!
for many american people, and for reasons above, the american federal government had
morphed into an alien body, regardless of the voters' political will, pushing its own alien
globalist agenda and endless wars.
4-5 years ago, there was the talk of secession.. american states should leave the union en
masse to cancel a useless federal govt. and summon a new continental convention. a new
constitution will be proclaimed which allows the states to fire any president or congress,
who don't heed to states' (people's) calls to come to senses, by a majority vote. i don't
know how widespread that discussion was.. i know, it exists. and if trump is unsuccessful
somehow or gets imprisoned, that danger still looms.
it may seem unimportant, what happens to america; but remember, she is the flagship of the
western civilization. for all people on earth, what happens to the u.s.a. will this or that
way affect what happens to them. regards..
@Smith
Yes.
I would love to see BO hoisted on this petard along with Biden.
Why should Biden be the only one to take the fall for BO, the Clintons, Nuland, etc.?
Actually, that logic doesn't seem quite kosher to me -- doesn't the actual truth/reality
count for something?
Its quite logical the 'appearance ' of a conflict of interest can lead to questioning
motives that's why judges 'recluse' themselves in cases where they have ties to anyone or
anything involved in the case.
Since you cant peer into the mind of someone who has the 'appearance 'of conflicting interest
the best approach is to remove said person from any involvement in the search for the
truth.
@Sean
McBride One issue that stuns me is that snarky comments of Chelsea Clinton to the
President, publicly made and without one ounce of fear. He tweeted something about the
Biden/Ukraine impeachment hoax was part of the biggest political scam, and this repellent
little beast shot back:
Yes, you are.
Readers here know, and certain members of the media know (Ammanpour, Anderson Cooper who
have actually traveled without fixers and entourages)
that if the daughter of a past PM or President smarted off to Erdogan, Xi or Rouhani on a
social media account,
she would likely disappear, be tortured or her children would be snatched for a few weeks,
to get her "mind right".
Chelsea Clinton is a repulsive slob who has no achievements other than inviting an actual
human sex trafficker to her marriage to a fat, sullen Jew that is unemployed.
Trump needs to go full thug. He needs to go completely bananas bat shit and have Biden's
son indicted TODAY.
From his first day, I was certain that it was a catastrophic error not to indict Hillary
Clinton and her accomplices. She never let up, and it appears she may just win yet.
@Johnny Walker
Read "Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?"
No! Not the only one.
But in the case of Shamir I chalk it up to his focusing on the Biden details -- not on the
big Barry picture. Surely the buck for this whole thing comes to rest like a stinking turd on
Barack Obama's desk. It all occurred on his watch, overseen by his State Dept.
Or perhaps not on his desk.
Obama must owe major Jewish chits in Chicago. Rahm Emanuel, anyone?
I am kind of flailing here, but when I think Chicago and Dem party and Obama I think Rahm
Emanuel and Penny Pritzker, and when I think Rahm Emanuel I think dual citizen and dad was a
Zionist terrorist. What does all of that have to do with the Ukraine? I don't know!!
Plenty of Jewish oligarchs there . .
Biden is corrupted. Clinton is corrupted. But Trump is corrupted too for the following
reasons (among others):
1. Timing: He has not investigated Biden nor Clinton for almost 3 years. Now that Biden
seems likely Democrat nominee, he suddenly becomes so keen to investigate, while still
ignoring (or not pushing for) investigation of Clinton (who is not running).
2. Corruption: Trump appears corrupted too when he tries to use US aids as leverage to get
Ukraine to start the ball rolling on something that can benefit his re-election. This is
almost no difference than what Biden did.
3. Vengeance: Instead of letting the machinery of Justice and State departments work at
their own pace, Trump looks vengeful when he and his personal lawyer Giuliani are intimately
involved.
The end results is that Trump supporters becomes more convinced of Biden/Clinton/Democrats
wrong doing, and the Democrat supporters becomes more convinced of Trump's corruption and
guilt. So, the country hardens the divide and more people lose confidence of politicians.
Here's Scott Ritter , Iraq weapons inspector who objected to calling off the Iraq
inspections. .
My Letter From Joe Biden
Author's note: The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition
will go down in history as one of the greatest geopolitical disasters in modern history.
Then-Sen. Joe Biden was in a unique position to prevent this war from happening. That he
chose not to speaks volumes about the man who now seeks to become the next president of the
United States. My personal experiences with Biden from 1998 to 2002 provide a window into the
character of the man that Americans should familiarize themselves with before considering
whether to give him their support.
Scott Ritter
[MORE]
"I envy your position. I sincerely do. I envy the ability to have such clarity on this
issue."
Listening to those words, coming as they were from Sen. Joe Biden, one of the most vociferous
defenders of the policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I knew I was in for a grilling.
It was Sept. 15, 1998. I was seated, alone, at a table reserved for witnesses, giving
testimony to a joint session of the Senate foreign relations and armed services committees
about the reasons behind my resignation as a chief weapons inspector with the United Nations
Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with overseeing the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) programs. Arrayed before me were some of the most powerful people in
the United States, if not the world. The combined membership of these two committees totaled
36 senators, a little over a third of the entire membership of that esteemed body. More than
20 were present at the hearing and, over the course of the next hour and a half, I was
questioned in detail by 17 of them, none of whom seemed to object to my presence more than
Biden.
"Let me ask you a question," Biden continued. "Do you think you should be the one to be
able to decide when to pull the trigger?"
By Aug. 28, I had received a call from the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
requesting my presence on Sept. 3 before a joint session of that committee and the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Biden, however, had taken umbrage over the fact that the hearing had been allowed to go
forward without the presence of either the secretary of state or secretary of defense to
offer balance, especially when, as he couched the issue, I was trying to push the United
States to war with Iraq. "Isn't that what this is about?" he demanded. And despite my answers
to the contrary, Biden proceeded to lecture me on the limitations of my position as an
inspector. "I respectfully suggest that [the secretaries of state and defense] have
responsibilities slightly above your pay grade that's why they get paid the big bucks. That's
why they get the limos and you don't." The issue, Biden said, was more complex than simply a
question of "Old Scottie Boy didn't get in." It was a decision "above my pay grade," and the
jobs of those charged with making that decision were "a hell of a lot more complicated than
yours." It was about as insulting an experience one could imagine, and it took all my
willpower to sit there and take it unflinchingly
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who said, "We realize, Major Ritter, as far as we
know, that you did not have a limousine; you did not make the big bucks we understand that,
like sergeants and junior officers and people who carry the rifles and actually do the
fighting and do the inspecting, that you may have a perspective that the big-bucks people
don't."
But rather than allow the inspections to run their course, the Clinton administration
instead used the work of UNSCOM to deliberately provoke a confrontation, seeking to inspect a
sensitive facility belonging to the Baath Party based upon old intelligence information that
had long since expired. The goal was to get the Iraqis to deny inspectors access to the site.
When Iraq instead agreed to allow inspectors inside the facility, the Clinton administration
immediately ordered all UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq, before initiating a 72-hour bombing
campaign, Operation Desert Fox,
Biden, later declined to talk to me directly, instead dispatching a senior member of the
minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with me. This meeting was a
singular disappointment. The staffer began by calling me a traitor for speaking out about
Iraq and took umbrage when I backed up my claims with documents. "You are not supposed to
have these materials," he said. "They are classified, and you are a traitor for publicizing
the information they contain."
After reminding the staffer that he was walking a very
dangerous line in calling a former officer of Marines a traitor, I pointed out that the
information I cited was from my time as an inspector, and was not classified in any way.
The staffer agreed that the article was fact-based, even if he disagreed with its
conclusion. "But this isn't about facts. This is about politics, and Senator Biden will not
go against the policies of the Clinton administration, even if those policies are
failing."
Biden convened his hearing, which sought the testimony of witnesses hand-picked to sustain
the desired conclusion that Iraq was a threat worthy of war. He then went on to vote in
support of the use of military force against Iraq -- a sharp contrast to the position he took
in 1991.
You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe
Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be
pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his
country and the world.
I also agree that all of this is a deep state operation against Trump. Why the deep state
doesn't like Trump? Because they are afraid that he is going to blow their cover about the
supposedly "liberal" US. It's all phony, but that's all they got, fake liberalism to keep the
proles quiet in order not to demand real social improvements in their "democracy", instead of
senseless voting in fixed elections.
The "catastrophic error" was allowing the Mueller/Russia farce to drag on and on, with the
media and hack political/pundit class shitting on him daily, questioning the legitimacy of
his election and robbing him of nearly all presidential authority -- he showed himself to be
an easy mark, which is one reason they haven't let up -- he should have given Mueller six
months and not a day more, then very publicly fired the lot of them -- but he didn't have the
balls and this is the result -- instead he kisses Jew ass and bleats on and on about low
black and Hispanic unemployment -- then he acts surprised when they still hate his guts and
show him zero respect -- what's the point of being President and having the power of the
presidency if you're not going to use it?
@d dan This
a zionist tactic, divide and conquer, it is not good enough for the zionists that they
control the ZUS government, the zionists like to see their puppets tear each other apart, is
a continual zionist recreation.
The mockingbird mainstream whore media is unrelenting in its coordinated effort to coverup
the crimes of creepy Joe Biden and his son Hunter, whilst hoisting the blame for said crimes
on President Trump who had the audacity to request that the crimes of Joe and Hunter be
investigated.
September 20, 2019 Video of Joe Biden admitting that he bribed the Ukrainian President
with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son
@eah I see
Trump's tactical error differently. He needed to take a shot at the big money with a series
of antitrust cases against big tech, big banks and investment banks, big media.
It would have been very popular, and he would have been hitting the correct targets.
Trump
is a stupid cuck, a miserable pussy. That's why he can't get anything done. He TALKS big ..but then he rolls over every time. The biggest loss is on immigration/demographics. He isn't going to do anything about
it.
He responds to jewing by bending over more .and the jews respond by reaming his ass even
HARDER.
If he'd just stand up to them and tell them to fuck off, the whole world would be better
for it.
@Robert
Dolan Yea, Trump is not very good, but the cackling hyena would have been atrocious. It's
too bad we are reduced to choosing between shit and even bigger shit, but is it quite clear
which shit was bigger in 2016. It looks like it's going to be just as clear in 2020, as Dems
did everything to remove even half-decent candidates.
Best damn thing said about the Trump and Biden corruption fight..
Its everybody pilgrims everybody.
Just read thru to see ALL the US politicos and Elites involved in the huge money pit
corruption that is Ukraine. There are dozens of them. Protecting the Ukraine from Russia is
the guise for getting stinking rich for those using their office or connections to congress
or the StateDept.
ITS THE CORRUPTION THAT HAS BECOME NORMALIZED IN THE US BABY CAKES!
Don't waste your time with partisan bullshit defending Trump or Biden.
Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing.
Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class.
Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party
they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people
will.
No one likes being cheated or betrayed.
There was little chance that the Trump Administration could prosecute Clinton Inc. without a
widespread hue and cry of political vengeance being leveled: Likewise with the Bidens.
As I've commented in UR a few times before, Trump should hand out Presidential Pardons to
the scurvy lot of them; they'll never be prosecuted for their misdeeds, so why not tar them
with pardons that spell out those misdeeds in gleeful detail.
This isn't partisan oppo war. Kurt Volker, the virgin they threw into the volcano when Biden
got burned? I knew him back when he disappeared into CIA. Think he quit, and just happened to
show up in all these sensitive jobs?
McCain's ventriloquist, then senior ratfuck officer
assigned to Dmytro Firtash? This is just more of the same shit, CIA picks up their
presidential Ken dolls and shakes them around like they're talking to each other.
Biden's
role as poster boy for corruption is all-you-can-steal, but don't imagine he has agency or
discretion or anything.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them
are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President
Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President
Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in
Clintonite camp.
The Clintonite clan can be better described as the Western Global(ist) Deep State. Whether
it's the global white genocide project or the global CO2 control initiative, it's glaringly
obvious that a lot of "our" political representatives are getting their marching orders from
a half-hidden group of wannabe masters of the universe.
The scary part is that a lot of those politicians are unflinchingly pushing unpopular and
ultimately political-career-ending policies. That's how much their loyalty lies on the side
of these enemies of humanity.
@renfro I
would only insert the note that all this mess started by Carter moving into Somalia.
I was really puzzled by that. Only years after I did realize that it was long term plan for
destabilization of Muslim power
@Realist I
guess you don't have the proper reverence for "Bite-Me". Every other story ever written about
that slimeball mentions that he lost a wife and child in an auto accident right after he won
his first election to the US Senate. He's been trafficing off of it for nearly fifty years
now. Sometimes he says the accident was caused by a drunk driver (not true). The family of
the other driver has been trying to get him to stop making that claim, but I guess it brings
more sympathy.
If you love Jews for Israel Vote for Joe.
Did you know that our constitution is based on Jewish values?
I didn't know that but Joe says it is.
Strange there's not a single Jew among the signers of the Del of Indep. or the Constitution.
Biden: 'Jewish heritage is American heritage'
excerpts
"The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential
part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage," he said.
"The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized
influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me
and all of those who went before you."
"So many notions that are embraced by this nation that particularly emanate from over 5,000
years of Jewish history, tradition and culture: independence, individualism, fairness,
decency, justice, charity.
Jews have also been key to the evolution of American jurisprudence, he continued,
namedropping Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan. "You literally
can't. You can't talk about the recognition of rights in the Constitution without looking at
these incredible jurists that we've had."
"Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more
than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," he said.
"We talk about it in terms of the incredible accomplishments and contributions" of Jews in
America, Biden added, but it's deeper "because the values, the values are so deep and so
engrained in American culture, in our Constitution."
"So I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean
that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you've had on the development of this
nation. We owe you, we owe generations who came before you," he said."
I don't think Nancy would impeach if she could not get a conviction. Why would Republican
Senators say no to Trumps head on a platter? He's not one of them. The House will impeach and
the Senate will convict.
Then what? Then the Clinton/Bush/Obama crime family and their paymasters will remain safe
and in charge of the Federal Government. Safe from Orange Man and the Deplorables I mean.
Russia, China and Iran are another matter.
Unless U.S. Atty Barr has something really good up his sleeve. Does anybody here think
Barr will actually do anything? Other than not inditing Comey?
Today America is governed by an Organized Criminal Enterprise. a take over that began with
then Vice President Bush after his bungled assasination of Ronald Regan. However, it wasn't a
complete failure as it resulted in Bush (a Rockefeller asset) actually running the WH, and
subsequently winning the presidency.
Bill Clinton (a possible Rockefeller offspring, who for
all his Democratic party trappings is a CIA (Bush) creation who was treated by G. Bush like
a favored nephew, and both benefitted greatly in partnership international narcotics
trafficking.
After Bill it was George's son's turn, after that came Rockefeller's next choice
Obama. Trump interrupted the Rockefeller reign, but he has problems too steming from his
accepting Russian mafia money in the late 80s early 90's, to save his real estate empire.
They, the Russian/Ukrainians, needed a brand name through which to launder money into the
states, looted from mother Russia, and Trump filled that need to a T. So today we're
witnessing a fight between the Russian mafia crooks including a reluctant but fatally comprimised Trump, and the Rockefeller's communist crooks, all for control of America, her
banks and military, and ultimately the world.
@Justvisiting
I understand the approach; it would be very popular with Joe 6-Pack. Big Media has been
exposed: watch Giuliani and George Stepinshitalopolous. The Naked Deceit of the MSM has been
laid bare. I think that in future, many will look back and see that a simple win as you
suggest was not doable;the lack of executive control of the Alphabet agencies and Civil
Bureaucracy is near non-existent at this point. 2020 will break the will of the Democrat
Party. Two years of controlling the House and Senate could actually allow for this type of
activity because the way was cleared to do so in the first term.
What the Dems did was go spastic for 3 years screaming Russia to hide Ukraine. I'm sure
there is more dirt in Ukraine and China and .Notice Trump has 2 personal lawyers that he has
briefed to handle items he could normally count on a Cabinet Secretary to do? Why? These are
not, I suggest, normal times. The C_A, Brennan, Clapper and others are in full court press.
But now it's the 4th period and they are out of gas (sorry, bad sports metaphor).
Trump could get impeached. The Senate would look at it. Rule it is spurious and throw it out.
Then McConnell could say: 'What about this CFR video, Biden, Ukraine what about that?" Trump
gets elected in 2020 with a landslide after gaining significant sympathy and support. The
MORE INSANE the MOCKINGBIRD CIA media behaves, the more people are leaving the Democrat Party
and the more Independents see Trump as the only game in town.
Who is their to vote for: Biden, Warren, Booker, Bernie? The Left has no one except Gabbard
and they don't trust her. Kamala Harris has lost all heart. Killary Clinton or Big Mike
Obama? The voters would reject both. They have nothing.
@Sean
McBride I have a colleague, who I believe to be a psychopath, who always backs the person
he thinks will win in our organization's power struggles.
He has been very successful, and
leads a happy and celebrated life. I would urge all of you to consider his example, think
first of your families, and desist from backing a losing cause.
America is mostly lost. We
can keep it alive in our homes, but our political culture is, and will remain, an alien
culture, that renounces the vision of our founders.
@Rurik
Rurik,
good or bad, Mr Kolomoysky is the only one Ukr oligarch who is against IMF and against
Clintonites. Good or bad, he is not considered as anti-Putin, or anti-Russian in the Ukraine.
If he is connected to the nefarious entity called Rothschild, this omnipotent Rothschild did
not help him when the other bankers took over his bank.
The world is not that simple, Rurik. You see a Jew and you presume he is a Zionist, Jewish
supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater and Rothschild stooge. With this presumption, you do not
have to read at all.
@Cato A
question to consider: has America been a Masonic project from the start? Has it been a
Masonic project all along? Has there always been a radical disconnect between America's overt
agenda and a hidden agenda?
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of
the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.
"We don't call him shifty Schiff for nothing," said Mr. Trump. "He's a shifty dishonest
guy."
Mr. Schiff's aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer's accusations, Mr.
Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to the inspector general for the intelligence
community, Michael Atkinson, and advised him to seek legal counsel.
Mr. Schiff never saw the full complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would
deliver to Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Boland said. -NYT
GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling
the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet.
"... the text does not read the way government people write. It sounds instead like an op-ed, a mediocre journalist "connecting the dots," a Maddow exclusive combining anonymous sources with dramatic conclusions. Sure, maybe the whistleblower had help writing it, but that's not the point. The point is that the complaint was written for the media. It was written to be leaked. It wasn't even about an intelligence matter. Maybe that's why the DOJ quickly rejected its accusations, and why both the Times ..."
"... If the whistleblower really is an analyst, he is not a very good one. He mixes second-hand sources with public ones to mimic a weary Dem narrative of foreign election help much like the Steele Dossier . The complainant witnessed nothing himself and produced no primary documents. The sourcing is as vague as "more than half a dozen officials have informed me of various facts." No law is cited because none applied; the whistleblower simply recorded his interpretation into bullet points, like the punchlines from Russiagate no one laughed at. ..."
"... The whistleblower's expected testimony will be played as high drama but actually it is meaningless; he has an opinion but his accusations were made without hearing the call or reading the transcript. At least he's in good company: Nancy Pelosi also declared her support for impeachment before she'd heard the call or seen the transcript. ..."
"... Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the nominee . Goodbye then to all the minor Dems, see you in 2024, perhaps running against Mike Pence after Trump's second term ..."
"... The case is weak, though with their House majority, that might not stop the Dems from impeaching a president just months ahead of an election based on a partisan interpretation of a few words to a minor world leader. ..."
"... Democrats are taking that road instead of talking about jobs, health care, immigration, or any of the other issues voters do care about. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
the whistleblower complaint before the thing was
leaked to the Washington Post . The original complaint was passed from the
Intelligence Community Inspector General to the DOJ, which determined there was no crime and
closed the case. Officials found that the transcript did not show that Trump had violated
campaign finance laws by soliciting a thing of value, such as the investigation, from a foreign
national. Even as Democrats bleat about how corrupt the DOJ is, at some point during any
impeachment, they will need to make clear what evidence they have that finds crime where DOJ
did not. No one is above the law, sure, but which law exactly are we talking about here?
Trump is apparently no better at cover-ups than he is at extortion. He got no dirt on Biden
even as Ukraine pocketed its aid money (Ukraine, in fact, knew
nothing about the aid being frozen while Trump supposedly was shaking them down), and his
so-called cover-up concluded with him releasing in unprecedented fashion both the complaint and
the transcript. For a cover-up to even begin, you have to have something to cover, and a phone
call that led nowhere doesn't need to be covered up. In fact, it's on the internet right
now.
Advertisement
But the complaint says that the transcript was moved from one secure computer server inside
the White House to an even more secure server. That's a cover-up! Not discussed is that
Congress had no more access to the first server than the second. Exactly who was blocked from
seeing the transcript when it was on the more secure system who would have had access to it
otherwise? It seems the main person who suddenly couldn't grab the transcript was the
whistleblower. To make all this work, Democrats either have to argue for
less cybersecurity or impeach for over-classification. And of course, the Obama
administration also stored records of select presidential
phone calls on the exact
same server .
Bottom line: Trump asked the Ukrainian president to take calls from Bill Barr and Rudy
Giuliani to talk about corruption, a bilateral issue since the Obama administration with or
without Hunter Biden. There was no quid pro quo. Maybe a good scolding is deserved, but sloppy
statesmanship is not high crimes and misdemeanors.
Something else is wrong. The whistleblower is a member of the intel community (the New
York Times says CIA), but the text does not read the way government people write. It
sounds instead like an op-ed, a mediocre journalist "connecting the dots," a Maddow exclusive
combining anonymous sources with dramatic conclusions. Sure, maybe the whistleblower had help
writing it, but that's not the point. The point is that the complaint was written for the
media. It was written to be leaked. It wasn't even about an intelligence matter. Maybe that's
why the DOJ quickly rejected its accusations, and why both the Times and
the Huffington Post praised the writing, commenting on how much clearer the complaint was
than Mueller's legalese.
And that's a problem. A whistleblower complaint is meant to point out violations of law in
the language of prosecutors. It is legalese. A complaint requires data and references.
The evidence I needed to explain waste in Iraq's
reconstruction ended up at over 230
published pages. Daniel Ellsberg's
Pentagon Papers originally ran into multiple volumes to prove that the government lied
about Vietnam. Ed Snowden needed terabytes of data to demonstrate NSA illegality.
If the whistleblower really is an analyst, he is not a very good one. He mixes
second-hand sources with public ones to mimic a weary Dem narrative of foreign election help
much like the
Steele Dossier . The complainant witnessed nothing himself and produced no primary
documents. The sourcing is as vague as "more than half a dozen officials have informed me of
various facts." No law is cited because none applied; the whistleblower simply recorded his
interpretation into bullet points, like the punchlines from Russiagate no one laughed
at.
The whistleblower's expected
testimony will be played as high drama but actually it is meaningless; he has an opinion
but his accusations were made without hearing the call or reading the transcript. At least he's
in good company: Nancy Pelosi also declared her support for impeachment before she'd heard the
call or seen the transcript.
Here's where things stand. After three years of trying to keep Trump from assuming office,
then cycling through ways to throw him out, this plops onto the field. If an impeachment vote
comes, it will literally be with Trump having only a few months left in his term. This is no
longer about overturning 2016; it is about circumventing 2020, fear by the Democrats of what
will happen if they let the deplorables vote again. Is the Dem slate that weak? They are acting
as if they have nothing to lose by trying impeachment.
Pity Nancy Pelosi, who tried to hold back her colleagues. Now instead of answering the needs
of constituents, Democrats will instead exploit their majority in the House to hold hearings
that will likely lead to a show vote that would have embarrassed Stalin. History will remember
Pelosi as the mom who, after putting up with the kids' tantrums for hours, finally gave in only
a few blocks from home. She'll regret spoiling dinner over a hefty glass of white wine, but
what could she do: they just wouldn't shut up and her nerves were shot. Have you had
to listen to AOC complain from the back seat for two hours in traffic?
The last thing Joe Biden needed was more baggage. It'll take awhile for him to realize it,
but he's done, doomed by kompromat never actually found. Impeachment will so dominate
the media that no one will listen to whatever the other primary Dems have to say. Kamala Harris
in the midst of all this was so desperate for attention she was still trying to drum up support
for impeaching Brett
Kavanaugh .
Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the
nominee . Goodbye then to all the minor Dems, see you in 2024, perhaps running against Mike
Pence after Trump's second term .
The case is weak, though with their House majority, that might not stop the Dems from
impeaching a president just months ahead of an election based on a partisan interpretation of a
few words to a minor world leader. Impeachment didn't even come up in the last Democratic
debate, yet heading into the early caucuses, the faces of the party will be Adam Schiff and the
agita-driven Hillary. Democrats are taking that road instead of talking about jobs, health
care, immigration, or any of the other issues voters do care about.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant
Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People ,
Hooper's War: A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99
Percent.
"... Schiff's hate for Trump and hate for Russia, can be easily explained by the money he appears to received from his oligarch patron, who has an agenda to neo-liberalize Ukraine, and profit from the pillage started in Maidan in 2014. ..."
When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff's When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff's
well
documented Putin obsession may have something to do with his billionaire, military complex, oligarch patron from Ukraine.
In a Zerohedge post yesterday, chronicling the latest Adam Schiff idiocy, where the Democrat Congressman spoke to a crowd at
the University of Pennsylvania,
declaring Russian ads promoted the Second Amendment during the 2016 election "so we will kill each other" commenter
AlaricBalth linked some interesting information on Schiff's underlying motivation behind his Russia hysteria
Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff's anti-Russian narrative is carefully orchestrated
by his Ukrainian handlers Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff's anti-Russian narrative
is carefully orchestrated by his Ukrainian handlers
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/843864725062664197
"TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam Schiff" "TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam Schiff" "TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam
Schiff" http://politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/ Pasternak,
who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture
and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two
countries and has been especially active building awareness of Ukraine's strategic economic importance among Members of Congress.
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. Pasternak, who was raised and educated in
Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active
in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two countries and has been especially
active building awareness of Ukraine's strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. 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. Pasternak, who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the
United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and Washington,
D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two countries and has been especially active building awareness of Ukraine's
strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. 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.
Jack Posobiec tweeted in March 2017 on Schiff's connection to Pasternak and George Soros Jack Posobiec tweeted in March 2017 on Schiff's
connection to Pasternak and George Soros
Hi @RepAdamSchiff! Why did Soros-tied Ukraninan Arms Dealer Igor Pasternak hold a fundraiser for you? #ComeyHearing Hi @RepAdamSchiff!
Why did Soros-tied Ukraninan Arms Dealer Igor Pasternak hold a fundraiser for you? #ComeyHearing
PIN IT Who is Who is Who is Schiff's patron, Igor
Pasternak? He is a Ukraine globalist, military industrialist who was curiously spotted in Maidan, Kiev in 2014 for "diplomatic
reasons" during the US/CIA sponsored coup.
PIN IT
Founded 27 years ago in the U.S., the Aeroscraft Corporation (Aeros) has grown from a small aerostat production manufacturer
to a leading FAA-certified airship producer and R&D firm for the aerospace industry. Aeros has achieved multiple FAA airship
type certificates and operates with an FAA Production Certificate, while featuring a product line that includes advanced airships
and tethered aerostats utilized in commercial and government applications throughout the world. Learn more at
http://www.aeroscraft.com.
A Ukrainian billionaire oligarch, with military industrial complex contracts, funding Adam Schiff's campaign dinners at $2,500
a plate no wonder Schiff is pushing the Russia fear mongering so hard.
Schiff's hate for Trump and hate for Russia, can be easily explained by the money he appears to received from his oligarch
patron, who has an agenda to neo-liberalize Ukraine, and profit from the pillage started in Maidan in 2014.
Perhaps its time to shine a little bit of light on Adam Schiff's Ukraine collusion.
Ukrainegate is all about power of deep state to control the narrative
Notable quotes:
"... That is what this is all about. It always is. Then-editor Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post, when it looked like the Iran-Contra matter might break Ronald Reagan's presidency, after his 49-state landslide, chortled, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate." ..."
"... This is what the deep state does to outsiders Middle America sends to Washington to challenge or dispossess it. ..."
To ensure the investigation was done swiftly, she took the franchise from Nadler and his
judiciary committee and handed it to Adam Schiff and the intelligence committee. Now she is
urging a narrowing of the articles of impeachment to just one -- Trump's request of Ukraine's
president to look into the Bidens.
Pelosi's hope: Have one House vote on a single article of impeachment by year end; then send
it on to the Senate for trial and be done with it. This is Nancy Pelosi's fast track to
impeachment of Trump and ruination of his presidency. But, to be sure, she is "heartbroken"
about all this.
For three years, the media-deep state axis has sought to overturn the election of 2016 and
bring down Trump, starting with Russia-gate. Now it appears to have tailored and weaponized the
impeachment process.
That is what this is all about. It always is. Then-editor Ben Bradlee of The Washington
Post, when it looked like the Iran-Contra matter might break Ronald Reagan's presidency, after
his 49-state landslide, chortled, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate."
This is what the deep state does to outsiders Middle America sends to Washington to
challenge or dispossess it.
How should the Republican Party and Trump's base respond?
Recognize reality. Whether or not Trump was ill-advised to suggest to the president of
Ukraine that passing on the fruits of the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, the end game
is bringing down Trump, democracy's equivalent of regicide.
While the "whistleblower," whose memo is the basis of these impeachment hearings, is well on
his way to Beltway beatification, no campaign to depose the president can be allowed to cloak
itself in anonymity indefinitely, for one man's whistleblower is another man's seditionist.
Whom did the whistleblower collaborate with to produce his memo? What is his background?
What are his biases? The people have a right to know. And democracy dies in darkness, does it
not?
Not until 30 years after Watergate did we learn the "whistleblower" known as "Deep Throat"
was a corrupt FBI veteran agent who leaked grand jury secrets to The Washington Post to
discredit acting Director Pat Gray and thereby become FBI director himself.
His identity was sheltered for three decades. For whose benefit?
Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process but should give their
troops time to recognize the stakes involved, organize a defense and repel this latest
establishment attempt to overthrow a president elected to come to the capital to corral that
establishment.
Force all the Democratic candidates for president to take a stand on removing Trump for high
crimes -- over a nebulous phone call to Kiev.
And the U.S. Senate should refuse to take up and should return to the House any bill of
impeachment done in a short-circuited and savagely partisan manner, as this one is being done.
There should be no rush to judgment.
If the election of 2020 is going to be about President Trump, tell the nation that the
people will decide his political fate in November 2020, and that of Joe Biden if Democrats
believe he is as pure as the driven snow and choose to nominate him.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pelosi is speaker in name only she runs nothing. She is old and addled , a real dumbass. In
fact most of Congress is that way. The Deep State is the real power anyway.
Perhaps this farce is all about Trump's recalcitrance over Iran.
Trump was supposed to do a 'Libya' to Iran by now. There is grumbling that he's too
worried about his own re-election, to follow through with the quid pro quo.
He was ousted from his role amid disputes over foreign policy.
Pelosi's hope: Have one House vote on a single article of impeachment by year end; then
send it on to the Senate for trial and be done with it. This is Nancy Pelosi's fast track
to impeachment of Trump and ruination of his presidency.
Pelosi has been in the DC swamp long enough to know that a Republican controlled Senate is
going to use any Senate Trial to their own ends.
So what does Senate Trial actually mean? Short answer, whatever Mitch Connell wants
it to mean.
Given how badly Adam Schiff is comprimised, there can be little doubt he will be
subpoenaed and forced give testimony under oath with the penalty of Justice Department
investigation for perjury if he lies. Will he:
-- Take the 5th to avoid perjury?
-- Refuse to testify?
Pelosi has to know that this will be bad for the Democrat party. So, "Why is she doing
it?"
Fortunately the author has already provided the correct answer:
But to Pelosi this was looking like a loser, a dead end, a formula for failure followed
by a backlash against House Democrats and her own removal as speaker in January 2021, if
not before.
After advising against this, and only reluctantly going along, she has laid the trail of
blame directly "The Squad" including AOC. Who is the greatest threat to Pelosi? Could it be
AOC?
Pelosi's first priority is Pelosi. She is acting to minimize harm and maximize gain to
Pelosi. Is anyone surprised?
To be honest, this makes her like most other politicians (1).
@Robert
Dolan What should make your head hurt is that the powers that be can make false
allegations against anyone, can provide fake witnesses and documents to back up their
allegations, can slander their name all over the mass media, can get them removed from their
job, and may be able to get them sent to prison.
Anyone.
This may appear to be about Trump, but it is not.
This is about every single living breathing person.
If you are not afraid you are not paying attention.
Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process but should give their
troops time to recognize the stakes involved, organize a defense and repel this latest
establishment attempt to overthrow a president elected to come to the capital to corral
that establishment.
I'm sure there is no shortage of Repubes who think letting Trump get the heave-ho will
allow them to get back to serious government; if Trump gets the heave-ho, they will find
themselves wandering in the desert longer than the last go-round following the Dems' capture
of the government in 1933. The thing about importing millions of new voters from south of the
border is that you get an electorate already accustomed to a century of one-party rule.
"Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process "
Oh, no doubt. Republicans should also slap down one of their own, Mitch McConnell, for
fast tracking Chuckie Schumer's Senate resolution to turn the whistleblower's complaint over
to Schiff's Star Chamber without debate from republicans in the Senate.
Did you miss that one, Pat? It was reported in NYmag's Intelligencer:
"One of the most pressing questions of the hectic Tuesday involved why Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell chose to counter his block-everything legacy and fast-track the
resolution. (McConnell chose to "hotline" the motion, meaning he bypassed normal Senate
procedures to move Schumer's request to a vote without floor debate.) "
This surpasses the GOP's reputation of being the stupid party and shows them as the ally
of their "loyal opposition", doesn't it? Shouldn't republicans also try to keep their own
team members from handing the democrats whatever they want for their impeachment scam?
Thank you for this article. I hope to God the Senate does exactly as you say they should,
which is to quickly and unceremoniously toss any such single-issue impeachment article back
over the fence to the House. And I hope to God Trump wins re-election decisively and the
House crazies are tossed out on their ears. Is it too much to hope and pray that there are
still enough sane voters in the country? You don't have to love Trump to see that putting him
back in office and flipping the House to Republican would be a well-deserved rebuke to the
likes of Schiff, Pelosi, the Squabs, Never-Trumpers, and the Deep State intent on deposing
the duly-elected President against the will of the people.
@Realist
"Old and addled, a real dumbass?" That perfectly describes the focus of Trump's infamous
phone call – Joe Biden. I can't believe that that senile old man is still in the race,
or was allowed to run in the first place.
"... As The Times reports, "The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide did not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else." ..."
"... GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet. ..."
"... Finally, if this process seems vaguely familiar, it's because it should be: as the Federalist's Sean Davis writes, this is a carbon copy of what happened with Christine Blasey Ford's accusations aimed at sabotaging Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. ..."
While President Trump is now accusing Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) of 'helping to write' a CIA
whistleblower's complaint at the heart of an impeachment inquiry, the New York Times is out
with a Wednesday article designed to put distance between the House Intelligence Committee
Chairman and the accusation - suggesting Schiff had no more than a vague sneak peek .
As The Times
reports, "The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B.
Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President
Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed
a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide did
not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else."
So - according to the Times, Schiff kinda sorta knew what the whistleblower said, and a
House Intel Committee aide told him (or her) to get an attorney - Andrew Bakaj - who "interned
for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Clinton in the fall of the same year," per
The Federalist .
The Times goes to great lengths to explain that nothing was untwoard.
"Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community," said
Schiff spokesman Patrick Boland.
Trump, meanwhile, is gunning for Schiff.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of
the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.
"We don't call him shifty Schiff for nothing," said Mr. Trump. "He's a shifty dishonest
guy."
Mr. Schiff's aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer's accusations, Mr.
Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to the inspector general for the intelligence
community, Michael Atkinson, and advised him to seek legal counsel.
Mr. Schiff never saw the full complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would
deliver to Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Boland said. -NYT
GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling
the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet.
Finally, if this process seems vaguely familiar, it's because it should be: as the
Federalist's Sean Davis writes, this is a carbon copy of what happened with Christine Blasey
Ford's accusations aimed at sabotaging Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation.
"The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff
of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President
Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed
a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide
did not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else."
Of course Schiff would say that? What? Does the NYT think Schiff and the democrats would
actually admit it?
The Federalist: Federal law doesn't provide any whistleblower protections to intel
operatives who refuse to first provide their allegations to the ICIG and instead go outside
the statutory process to leak their allegations to partisan activists.
...Even Truman was lamenting the CIA after creating it! a D.N.I? really? a top *****?
almost as powerful as the Attorney General?! Let them draw swords on one another......
Question - What is the purpose of this facade, this FAKE wrestling match between Trump and
the Elites?
Answer - To get conservatives invested in a false left-right political paradigm, to co-opt
and fracture the liberty movement, and ultimately to chain us to Trump so that the
credibility of conservatism goes down with him and the economic collapse that will be falsely
blamed on him.
To those out there who have awoken to the FRAUD that is Trump, your time to speak loudly,
clearly, and consistently is NOW. Fight for the truth like your life depends upon it -
because it does. If enough of us turn the tables and successfully detach ourselves from Trump
- the Elite will be at a severe disadvantage.
Yes- you will be attacked. You will be downvoted. But what's more important to you -
popularity or knowing that you stood up for what was right? Remember, courage is contagious
and silence is acquiescence. I know there are more of you out there - please get off the
fence and come join us. NOW.
BREAKING: Judicial Watch: DOJ Docs Show Rosenstein Advising Mueller 'the Boss' Doesn't
Know About Their Communications. Shows massive collusion and plotting by Rosenstein and
Muller, behind administrations back, and collusion with democrats and press.
"These astonishing emails further confirm the dishonest corruption behind Rosenstein's
appointment of Robert Mueller," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The emails also
show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media
reporters."
The whistleblower protection law (which Obama never let get in the way of his reprisals) law
says the spook must have "reasonably believed" Trump did wrong. How do you get there with a
trained swamp creature of the CIA?
Wow! Please expound on "the Unitary Executive 'theory'.
Is it treason or an impeachable theory?
Send links that are no main stream DNC printing presses.
Why don't the House start with putting the spook hiding behind hearsay protections on the
stand?
That would clear up the issue without spending 40 months with a deep state left over
trying to get people to 'breech process' and go to jail.
Why don't the House bring the spook's hearsay sources on the stand?
Since Nov 2016 the DNC tools have been Sherlock Holmesing Trump and anyone near him to
attempt a coup. Impeachment is not an end it is the coup conspirators process.
The spook rumor blower deserves no privacy, until he is proven separate from the DNC coup
conspirators.
The only protectable "referral" from a swamp creature is a referral against the swamp!
(The only control that Congress has over
the President is its power to impeach him.)
The unitary executive theory is a theory of US constitutional law holding that the US
president possesses the power to control the entire executive branch. The doctrine is rooted
in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the
United States in the President. ... (Wikipedia)
Attorney General William Barr has been criticized for his capacious view of executive
power. It's a view that some other conservatives also hold, and also that some progressives
hold, generally dependent upon which party occupies theWhite House.
But Barr's performance last week as he released the Mueller report betrayed a view of the
presidency that goes well beyond mainstream constitutional theories. If his influence is
allowed to become a legitimate position, the damage to the rule of law in America could far
out-last the drama of the Mueller report itself.
Since at least the 1980s, many conservatives have adhered to a unitary executive theory of
executive power. The theory is based on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: "The
executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That means
just the president, and the executive power can't be fractured and reassigned to various
commissions and committees as Congress was fond of doing through most of the 20th century.
Under unitary executive theory, all executive officers have to be, in some way or another,
accountable to the president. ...
IMO, the explanation offered above
is the 'weak form' of the theory.
The strong form, as I noted, is
that Congress' only recourse for an
over-stepping president is impeachment.
Let's begin with ISIS. In many different ways, I documented, on the CSS, beyond a a shadow
of a doubt that Hillary and McCain started ISIS. Hillary made the first move, as I previously
documented, by paying "blood money" to a small band of terrorists when she was on the board at
LaFarge. This gave birth to the financial backing that ISIS needed to get started. Their money
was used to entice other impoverished Muslims to join ISIS just like how American teens join
street gangs. This is not a secret and has been widely reported. McCain, while he was the head
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked the destruction of American military equipment
left behind in Iraq. This was deliberate and illegal, as by law, when the American military
abandons a theater of war, the weapons are destroyed so our enemies, or potential enemies
cannot procure needed muscle. McCain's actions led to the small ISIS remnant suddenly appearing
out of seemingly nowhere, to become armed to the teeth. Previously and with the help of former
PSYOPS officer, Scott Bennett, I was able to piece together this scenario. However, many other
outlets reached the same conclusion.
Why was ISIS created? ISIS was a transportation arm and a protection arm of drug trafficking
coming out of Afghanistan. They protected some of the distribution points while carrying out
terrorist activities which serves as an effect cover for their drug operation which is their
main duty. They have also evolved into an effective and well-armed militia, thanks to the CIA,
John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
The only thing that has changed since the war in Afghanistan began is that the heroin
traffic has grown to the world's biggest supply. Our US troops serve the purpose of protecting
various drug lords drug distribution centers. How does this operation escape the scrutiny of
Congress? It doesn't, to be perfectly blunt. The reason that we are still in Afghanistan is
because the Epstein/CIA/Mossad operation has compromised key American politicians. In a sense,
Epstein's Island was the center of the new (1984 style) Ministry of Truth. Entice key
politicians like Adam Schiff, photograph him with underage girls, and you have a powerful ally
in Congress. Multiple this strategy several times over and there is no danger that the war in
Afghanistan will ever end. For George W. Bush, his complicity covered up his cocaine habit. For
"Bathhouse Barry" as he was called, his seedy underworld Chicago lifestyle remains hidden as
long as he leaves the war alone. At the center of all of this complicity is Jeffrey Epstein and
spin off operations which exist to exact compliance through the blackmailing process. Hillary's
connection to ISIS and ultimately the Epstein empire keeps her out of prison. These forces
extracted Epstein from prison and this explains why the guards were not in position when the
extraction occurred. It is explains why the video footage, which was required in a suicide
watch situation, are "not available". It explains why Hillary has never stood trial.
Now, here comes Donald Trump. In two recent occasions he has threatened to withdraw troops
from Afghanistan. The infighting that would occur between the existing Afghan drug lords would
collapse the system and cut into the might profits of the heroin empire. Hence, we have yet
another attempt to remove Trump from power because he is not fully on board with these types of
CIA led operations. And make no mistake about it, according to long-term sources, when we are
talking Afghanistan, we are talking about world domination with many key politicians. This is a
Deep State operation.
Why not just kill Trump? The answer is simple. In 1963, there was no Independent Media (IM)
except for the likes of people like Josiah Thompson and the late Jim Marrs. These men never let
go of the assassination. Jim taught the first class on JFK assassination of the University of
Texas. It took 30 years and a major movie to fully awaken the American people, that on behalf
of David Rockefeller, Alan Dulles, LBJ, J Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon orchestrated the plot
to kill JFK because of the threat he posed to the Federal Reserve, the nuclear arms race and of
course JFK was opposed to the heroin cash cow known as Vietnam. The South Vietnamese President
was assassinated three weeks before JFK because both men were not on board with sending troops
into Southeast Asia to protect the drug trafficking of the Golden Triangle run by covert
operations of the CIA. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia was Afghanistan, before the Afghan war. If
there was an IM in 1963, this crime would have been solved by Christmas of the same year (30
days after the assassination). If Trump were to be assassinated, the IM would be all over this
and the American people would more than likely rise up and the Deep State cannot afford this.
So, covert operations must be employed by the CIA. This President must go before the election.
This was the same exact thinking when JFK was assassinated. If JFK were to get a second term,
he could irreparable harm to the Deep State of the day. The same is true for Trump. His border
policies alone, could cost the globalists drug-trafficking trade, run by the CIA and the
Mossad, billions of dollars. Since the Russian collusion did not result in impeachment, the
Ukraine plot was hatched. The plot is being led by Adam Schiff. Why Schiff? Because he is
compromised, deeply compromised as in Deep State compromised. He is implicated in Epstein
Island according to my best source. Because Trump is not fully on board and never has been with
the Afghan War, he has faced the Russian collusion and now the nothing burger of Ukraine-gate
and Schiff is leading the charge. The complicity of every American politician is being brought
to bear. If you have noticed that until the past few days, Pelosi was dragging her feet on
impeachment because she knows if it fails, her party is dead. Pelosi is implicated in border
drug trafficking and stealing water out of Northern California and sending it to Communist
China. Even Bill Maher is opposed to this course of action by the Democrats with regard to
impeachment. He sees the end of the Democratic Party if impeachment fails. Clearly, Maher did
not get the memo. It is impeachment at all costs. The Deep State is reeling, and this is their
Kamikaze attack. It is all or nothing.
These facts, listed above, have been fully communicated. However, what follows is not as
well-known and is serving to fuel the Ukrainian frame up of Trump. I have information that
comes out of the intel community that has shed light on this situation. In fact, this
information is reverberating in the intel community. It is suppressed as I write these words
and CNN and the rest of the MSM are scrambling to create a diversion that will take eyes off of
what you are going to read right here.
My insider source, and the info was partially confirmed by another source, implicates
Congressman Adam Schiff in a plot to overthrow the US government beginning with Donald Trump.
Schiff is part of group, fronting for CIA/Mossad interests in drug trafficking.
Schiff is a compromised man. He is deeply implicated in the shenanigans of the Epstein
child-sex-trafficking empire according to the source. As many world-wide politicians are,
Schiff is being blackmailed by Epstein-related interests with a political agenda.
Schiff has another issue that he needs to cover up and it has to do with Ukraine. I have
been told by this inside source that Adam Schiff was in league with Hunter Biden and corrupt
Ukrainian officials and that Schiff received hundreds of thousands of dollars to steer
Congressional oversight away from Ukraine. Why? Because the Ukrainian revolution was CIA
inspired. Why? Because the CIA and the Mossad wanted their drug trafficking to extend to the
Silk Road and Putin told the CIA where to go and what to do when they got there. Subsequently,
the CIA initiated a coup in Ukraine and installed wholly corrupt EU figures in the power base
of the country. This was something that the CSS reported on extensively when this was
occurring. Ukraine is one of Russia's main source for natural gas and the loss of Russian
revenue related to this revolution in Ukraine. And what did Putin do, he retaliated and
occupied Crimea. The previously identified Democrats moved into the vacuum and began to profit
from the criminal enterprises that sprang up as a result of what was happening in Ukraine. Some
of these figures includes Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake and Hunter/Joe Biden.
The readers may have noticed that Mitt Romney has seemingly come out of nowhere to enter
this controversy and go after Trump. If that seemed out of place to you, as it did to me, there
was a very good reason for this. Mitt Romney has been after Trump since day one. Additionally,
Jeff Flake who mysteriously resigned from the Senate and did not seek re-election has
periodically surfaced to attack Trump and he has done so again over the Ukrainian issue. Why?
Why are Flake, Romney and Schiff all on the attack? Why were 500 words deleted from the
transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky in order to create the illusion that Trump
was obstructing justice? The answer is that Flake and Romney were involved in Hunter Biden's
criminal enterprise in Ukraine. They are all at risk. That is why these people are taking front
and center against Trump.
My insider source did not give me the following information, but it must be related. It was
announced, or should I say, purposely leaked, that Barr and Trump are looking for an
international conspiracy with regard to American Deep State interests. This goes back to an
Epstein international blackmailing operation. Trump is playing chicken with the Deep State. I
recently scoffed when it was suggested to me that the Deep State was in a near-collapsed state.
I am no longer skeptical. I am certain that Joe Biden, former President Obama, the late John
McCain, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and many others are deeply compromised and
it is on the verge of coming out and the Epstein blackmail enterprise may not be able to stop
the disclosures.
And what about Schiff? Why is he leading the charge? Because he is willing to commit treason
than risk going to jail for the rest of his life.
I will conclude these revelations with tweets from Trump that clearly shows he is in
agreement with what is reported here.
"Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be
mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to
Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest
for Treason?" tweeted Trump.
Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be
mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to
Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest
for Treason?
The Fake Whistleblower complaint is not holding up. It is mostly about the call to the
Ukrainian President which, in the name of transparency, I immediately released to Congress
& the public. The Whistleblower knew almost nothing, its 2ND HAND description of the call
is a fraud!
Twice, the President mentioned arresting Schiff for treason. He knows of what I have written
about in this report.
Also, Joe Biden is done. As these facts surface and his complicity in covering up for his
son, Hunter, further surfaces, Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the candidate for the Democratic
Party. What a joke! She cannot win! That is why Hillary, as I have said 22 prior times in print
and in podcasts, will emerge as the candidate. If she cannot win, civil war will follow. We are
in the middle of a Bolshevik Revolution.
Oh, and one more thing. The CIA changed its whistleblower forms in late August to allow
so-called whistleblowers to use hearsay statements. Wouldn't we all agree that this is a little
bit too coincidental? And in the musical words of the late Tom Petty, which fully applies to
the CIA's complicity here "Let's get to the point and roll another joint". These CIA demons are
killing our children with their drug operations.
"I never expect rationality from the Swamp, I will always be suspicious."
I agree. Some kind of strange Circus with sad clowns like Schiff. Just look at the holes
in the impeachment case (and info about possible links to Brennan CIA faction that became
stronger each days) using which any serious attorney can easily make Schiff to regret him
zeal:
In other words, Pelosi Dems implicated themselves more then they implicated Trump. Clearly
Team Blue elites need #RESISTANCE happy because now it's their [only] base. Wall Street will
prefer Trump to the current top Dem Candidate (Biden and Sanders are history now)
I think it's a colossal mistake, and Pelosi all-in game will blow in her face. They want
to take Trump out of the race but in reality they just increased chances of his re-election
dramatically.
What you are seeing is the neoliberal Democrats are finally discovering that they actually
need the voters that they've been dissing for decades.
And they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
In a very real sense, this impeachment gambit (Biden was pawn sacrificed) is a partisan
war between faction of the US elite where there are real penalties for losing.
The war which so far Trump is winning unless Senate acts in Pelosi way.
According to a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the
whistleblower contacted the committee before raising concerns about alleged wrongdoing with
the intelligence community inspector general.
"Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community,"
Patrick Boland, the spokesman, wrote in a statement.
"Consistent with the Committee's longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately
advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel."
The New York Times first reported that Schiff "learned about the outlines" of the
whistleblower's concerns before the complaint was filed, after the soon-to-be whistleblower
approached a committee aide with vague allegations of wrongdoing by Trump. The aide then
shared some of that message with Schiff, according to the Times.
... ... ...
"Well, I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I'd go a step further: I think he
probably helped write it. Okay? That's what the word is. And I think it's -- I give a lot of
respect for the New York Times for putting it out," Trump said.
"At no point did the Committee review or receive the complaint in advance," Boland wrote
in the statement. He declined to elaborate when asked what exactly Schiff knew about the
account before the complaint was filed.
According to a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the
whistleblower contacted the committee before raising concerns about alleged wrongdoing with the
intelligence community inspector general.
"Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how
to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community," Patrick
Boland, the spokesman, wrote in a statement. "Consistent with the Committee's longstanding
procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector
General and to seek legal counsel."
The New York Times first reported
that Schiff "learned about the outlines" of the whistleblower's concerns before the complaint
was filed, after the soon-to-be whistleblower approached a committee aide with vague
allegations of wrongdoing by Trump. The aide then shared some of that message with Schiff,
according to the Times.
... ... ...
"Well, I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I'd go a step further: I think he
probably helped write it. Okay? That's what the word is. And I think it's -- I give a lot of
respect for the New York Times for putting it out," Trump said.
"At no point did the Committee review or receive the complaint in advance," Boland wrote in
the statement. He declined to elaborate when asked what exactly Schiff knew about the account
before the complaint was filed.
"... If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment? ..."
"... One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike. ..."
"... Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time for the election. Buckle up, indeed. ..."
"... The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger" ..."
"... The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent, but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. ..."
"... Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were ratting on the CIA. ..."
"... I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed. The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't. ..."
"... And Pelosi, when asked by the CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" ..."
"... There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have to look no further than her constituency, the donor class. ..."
"... Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's harmful acts to date. ..."
"... Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever, brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous. ..."
"... In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected. ..."
"... Once is the intra-elite competition between the intelligence community and Trump. ..."
"... Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue town than any other candidates. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it. ..."
"... The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks, of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism. One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct about the "Noise" part. ..."
"... The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses, more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has supported those policies in the past. ..."
"... Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political, which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against. ..."
"... And not a word about Clinton approving arms sales while Secretary of State and accepting gifts to their foundation? ..."
"... What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch. ..."
"... That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in office. ..."
"... Yes, Pelosi put the Intelligence Committee (Schiff) in charge, as opposed to the Judiciary Committee (Nadler). Odd. ..."
"... Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family! Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits. ..."
"... Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! ..."
"... Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later normalized and rationalized all this, of course.) ..."
"... In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for losing. ..."
"... Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than ever? ..."
"... It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves, that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway ..."
"... a world in which it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment. ..."
"... Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings will happen behind closed doors. ..."
"... Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the republicans or Trump (other than bombast). ..."
"... Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. ..."
"... As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership. His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the cause. ..."
"... Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence, halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged in US media? ..."
"... I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere. ..."
"... Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter ..."
"... Here, Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or political refuge. ..."
"... The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama. ..."
"... Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of the lies. Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful, prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME. ..."
"... I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to watch that theater live on a 60 inch screen. ..."
"We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden," said Biden's
brother James according to
this Politico story about how the Biden family cashes in on their well-placed relative.
... ... ...
If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that
say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment?
Two traps for a party that much of the nation depends on to rid them of the man the last
election elevated to power. Two reasons for independent voters -- those not Party loyalists,
not blue-no-matter-who, not Never-Trumpers, voters who never turn out for elections or rarely
do -- to not turn out for this one, when their voice and vote is needed most in this greatest
of watershed years
.
What's decided now, in this year and the next, will set the course of the nation and the
world for a dozen years to come -- or a dozen millennia if the chaos predicted by the most
pessimistic among us takes root and grows. After all, social and political chaos is a breeding
ground for authoritarian "solutions." We don't need any of those, and this may be the last
electoral chance to avoid them.
To reiterate a comment in the recent Water Cooler (this article is a better forum):
One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying
impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose
the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike.
Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine
about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation
origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be
trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time
for the election. Buckle up, indeed.
Yes, I've been wondering this also. The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow
too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so
it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger", as @InquiringMind
put it during the latest Water Cooler.
A recent decision was made by the intelligence organs to allow reporting of second-hand
information and be titled a whistleblower for your efforts. it is acceptable to spy (which
this is an example of, since it is not whistleblowing) and listen to conversations saying
they heard this or that was happening, report that through legal channels, and have it
accepted BECAUSE IT APPEALS POLITICALLY to the agency or the particular representative.
The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to
service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent,
but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free
flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. We're getting wise
– not completely, not with any assuredness that our info is complete, but enough to
cause tremendous doubt and distrust of the messaging coming from government and media
propagandists.
To me, the danger of this period is exactly the lack of organized opposition, politically
at home and among the nations of the globe, to this onslaught and flooding of the ears with
lies that become real due to that repetition. We are not united, and the convenient and quick
answers are flawed. The Communist Party was deeply flawed, and the International a craven
defender of Stalin, but we could certainly use some organization similar to fight this neocon
cancer now, before it metastisizes into worse, if that is possible. That being said,
impatience drives tribal thinking, already invading academia and the few public intellectuals
existing. I await the working classes hitting their limit. Buckle up, indeed
Hey, I'm not posing an answer, and see fear of one everywhere, so don't thank me. There is
a inchoate and diffuse anger brewing "out there", but it does not reflect our measured,
rather moderate knowledge of crime and abuse of power we observe daily. It will, given the
money and influence of the right wing, push over to such violent reaction it will make the
1930s seem like a birthday party. The left, or what is loosely left of it, badly needs
discipline and structure, but its traditional organs have been rent asunder and are not
trustworthy.
A thinktank? New party? Dunno it has to have room to grow, and our secret-sauce parties
and intel outfits have "six ways from Sunday" to mess with any of it. Clarity of political
thought seems to come from crisis and being cornered, but that clarity is not guaranteed to
be "healthy", babies going with the bath water-wise. Bernie is a short-term stopgap to the
bleeding IF he can wrap his mind around the movement and an understanding of the immediate
threats to its existence- i.e., the DNC.
Regarding the first sentence of your comment: The requirements of the law never changed,
the whistleblower used an old form anyway, and the recently changed form has been
replaced.
In any case, the IG's process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not
by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been
virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the
2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations
were credible and that Congress should be notified.
Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were
ratting on the CIA. This hearsay would be laughed out of a court of law absent other proof.
Further, I think we can dismiss the IG investigation as being anything not pressured by
establishment types threatened by Trump's vendetta against Obama and his wing of the neo-lib
global corporation, as it promises to open the can of worms that both parties are united in
foreign policy and who we deal with, and that unity spills over into McCarthy-like reaction
to any unpredictability and unreliability such as Trump's. We can't "get him" on his real
crimes, as that would leave all "them guys" exposed.
I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the
conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed.
The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't.
And Pelosi, when asked by the
CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" It will be extremely interesting to see how
much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators who will be casting decisive votes.
Thirty-three Republicans Senators will be excused and given cover. Is there a thirty-fourth
with the cojones to vote against removal and against the CIA's efforts to impose a color
revolution on American soil?
If this is really about 2020 then Democrats are even more stupid than I'm inclined to
believe. Krystal Ball said this morning that only 35% of the public supports impeachment. All
this effort will do is rile up Trump supporters. I recall what happened in the 1998 midterms
after the Clinton impeachment. There's every reason to believe this will turn around and bite
the Democrats in 2020.
Pelosi and Schumer are fine with that. If Democrats were to actually win, they'd have to
govern, and they can't do that.
There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have
to look no further than her constituency, the donor class.
From their perspective there has been too many uncomfortable policy debates, including
climate change, occurring on the campaign trail. As with Russiagate all of these discussions
will vanish from the corporate media.
Also, some of the donors have stated they will not donate to the Dems, and may in fact
donate to Trump, if Warren gets nominated.
Finally, purely for display of party unity, protecting Joe Biden, even if it brings him
down will have value. Also, this specific charge will not bring up any of other former "suits" illegal
actions.
Inasmuch as polling showing the combined popularity of Sanders and Warren exceed 30% while
Biden is down to 19%, if you can end with a inconclusive first round of voting at the
Democratic Convention, you can bring in the Supers and name the person of your choice.
As to the question of 'why now?', my guess is because the 'resistance' types see the
writing on the wall that they are going to lose with anybody but Sanders as the candidate,
and they aren't about to allow Sanders to win. RussiaRussiaRussia, porn stars, and everything
else they tried didn't work and they've got nothing else that would give the public at large
something to vote for .
As to that writing on the wall, I will offer some very anecdotal evidence, but I found it
telling. A few days ago I went to a rural county fair. Now granted these fairs likely attract
a more conservative crowd, however this particular fair was in the most liberal county in the
state. Took a look at the exhibition hall at the fair, full of quilts, 4th grade artwork,
canned tomatoes, etc. as well as booths for both the Republican and Democrat parties.
At the Democrat party booth, they had put out poster boards with a list of issues and you
were supposed to put a little round sticker next to the issue you felt was most important.
Boring policy wonk stuff. I don't even remember if anyone was manning the booth when we
stopped by, but if they were they made no attempt whatsoever to speak with us. My wife put
one sticker on a poster and walked away and we were the only people there at the time. In
fairness, clearly there had been people there earlier since there were a lot of stickers
stuck to posters.
At the Republican booth, there were a number of people in line engaging with those manning
the booth. And rather than just pining little stickers on a poster, the Republicans were
handing out Trump 2020 swag and letting people get photos with a big Trump cutout. IDoing fun
stuff. Walking around the fair later I saw one of the few Hispanics in attendance (this is a
very white county in an extremely white state) sporting a Trump 2020 tote bag as he and his
wife walked through the fair.
If I were to base a prediction on the evidence alone, I would say Trump and the Elephants
are going to hand the Asses their asses in 2020 and they can feel it coming.
I really don't see how this doesn't blow up in their faces, but they've got nothing
else.
This is my feeling on it. It's the Democrats' Benghazi, a string of congressional hearings
designed to produce dirt on Trump to sink him in the election. Actual impeachment and removal
is nahgunnahappen, as that requires 67 senators, which would require all Democrats in the
Senate, both independents, and 20 Republicans . It would be a minor miracle if five
Republicans signed onto impeachment.
However, with dirt slinging as the only useful outcome possible, it shows how incompetent
Pelosi is by limiting the inquiry to just the Ukraine business. The damning dirt could come
in any form out of any corner of Trump's ongoings, so why would you limit the dirt digging to
something that, on the face of it, doesn't scream it went any deeper than Trump's
implication. Especially as it didn't happen that long ago.
God, this is so stupid. Look, perhaps it is because I live in a different continent or I
have a twisted turn of mind but I am seeing something completely different at work here. Is
Trump Corrupt? Of course he is but in a completely ham-fisted way that makes it blatantly
obvious. With Trump you always have low expectations. But Thomas Neuburger talks about ICE
deaths, Puerto Rico, the Muslim ban but so what? Obama was guilty of far worse but no
Democrats will criticize him for any of it. An example? If you cover up an international war
crime such as torture, that is an international crime too and Obama definitely covered up for
the CIA tortures and "looked forward". And one ramification for that was the US now having a
ex-torturer as head of the CIA.
So here is my take. The past few months Americans were finally having subjects like
healthcare and college debt forgiveness getting some air time and some serious traction. The
Democrat candidates were being forced to give answers on their positions on such ideas. But
now? The Democrats have introduced impeachment which has all the success prospects of
Russiagate. Expect copious amounts of verbal diarrhea in the next few months which will allow
for no time for discussion of subjects like healthcare anymore. The DNC will shout down
anyone trying to do so by shouting "Impeachment!". And when the elections rock around in a
year's time and there is finally some minor space to start talking about such subjects, the
DNC will tell progressives "You know, you should have really brought this up in 2019 while
there was time to talk about it. Your bad."
Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the
Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's
harmful acts to date.
I tell people that Trump is a minor league con man because so many people assert that he
is a con man
Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was
prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company
friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever,
brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not
prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous.
In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected.
Obama is in a con man league of his own, as he benefits from the left's form of Obama
Derangement Syndrome.
Interesting that attacking trump on this is attacking Biden did dem elites give up on him?
don't see how he can survive, which seems to open the field for Warren sanders if so, not
what donors want, pelosi musta been forced by blue dogs cia.
Maybe good for sanders he needs rest, the stents will require recovery msm can't focus away
from impeach to celebrate his health problems
How long? Say one month?
Hopefully the dems great white hope Biden will be down and out by primaries Bernie might find
help in the south this time where it was a wall last time
Ca dem elites don't want Bernie, but electorate doesn't want Kamala
And Tulsi back on stage with her useful to focus on wars.
I think this vectors the right direction, Rev Kev. White noise to drown out clearly
articulated messages. If any of this were about actual evidence, Binney would've been called
to undercut the Crowdstrike assertions.
There are a couple of things that seem real. Once is the intra-elite competition between
the intelligence community and Trump. Epstein cracked a door and some light got through.
Trump seems to have taken the standard operating procedures personally.
Despite this, Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks
serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue
town than any other candidates.
The endgame comes with the primaries. Sander's campaign income has a verisimilitude with
greater weight than the polls. Even polls which aren't specifically rigged can't cope with
modern communications. The problem is, with electronic vote-flipping on top of old-school
methods, unless the paper ballots get in (which is against status quo interests), how can it
be made clear the vote is being rigged? Could public gatherings outside the polling places be
enough to offer an alternative count?
Plus, Sanders has set himself up as TINA. He has not spread his wealth of four decades of
credibility to anyone else. No Hindu is getting the Oval, so Gabbard is a gadfly, not an
option. Trump and the top three Democratic candidates could all actually die of old age.
The only thing I'd actually put a bet on in all this is that Trump will not be removed
from office via impeachment.
I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to
overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it.
The real determinate is which people 'care' about it. The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks,
of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism.
One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White
Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct
about the "Noise" part.
According to Ball in the "Rising" video, the percentage of people who support impeachment
is 35%. That pretty much covers all the "partisan hacks" you refer to.
To the average voter? This is just noise and nonsense. Regardless of how impeachment ends
(and one doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that it will go nowhere), the concerns and
the anger of average voters are not going away.
Ditto, Ambrit- a rational response bestride the not caring noise.
The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders
is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses,
more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has
supported those policies in the past.
Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing
govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on
the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of
policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political,
which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against.
Right now, probably true. However, we've been victim to propaganda many times before
– WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.etc. We have an apparatus that has honed its abilities
to reach millions immediately through TV, press, video, websites, that puts former agit-prop
to shame. We have been swarmed with the same message, basically allowing those caught in lies
previously to suddenly be believed today, "because"
The truth of any proposition comes down to its provenance and our ability to get tired of
the repetition and cacophony surrounding us, thus surrendering the ground. If enough believe
the initial message, if enough see their bread buttered by it, then the rest of us are prone
to that surrender unless an outside agency we CAN rely on exists.
It is sad to say that "not caring" becomes a positive. 50% of the voting public does not
vote, and most who vote do not care if their vote is even counted properly. Do not care
equals no democracy at all.
What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally
discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and
they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's caucus finally made her do what she despises doing. That it should
benefit her party leadership's choice to replace Donald Trump is, of course,
coincidental.
There's still the nit that there's been no congressional vote authorizing her impeachment
inquiry, which will keep the process in the courts and delay proceedings longer than
necessary.
Ms. Pelosi's actions bring to mind the contradictory naval order, proceed with all
deliberate speed. It is a sign that the admirals acknowledge the necessity of doing
something, but tell their commanders it's on them if it goes South.
That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and
prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much
as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in
office.
California is the vanguard of the "Resistance" to Trump. Pelosi is from California, as is
Schiff. Two of the Intelligence Committee members are also from California (Jackie Speier and
Eric Swalwell) as the LA Times pointed out a few days ago ("
California to play an outsize role in impeachment inquiry of Trump "). This is probably
why the whole impeachment inquiry is centered in the Intelligence committee and not the
Judiciary.
Various Obama officials live or work in California. For example, Eric Holder was hired by
the California Legislature to fight Trump. David Plouffe, who works with the Chan Zuckerberg
Initiative among other Silicon Valley groups, is helping a liberal group called ACRONYM with
anti-Trump digital messaging.
Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was
married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family!
Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits.
Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! The Wash Post even
had a fantasy piece about "President Pelosi" just a few days ago.
Thanks for that, saved me a bit of rushed commenting because I was going to quickly
comment on it before I noticed you had already.
California has 6 of the 24 members of the House Intelligence Committee: 4 of those 6
members hold 100% of Democratic (Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff) and Republican (Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes) leadership roles; there are 4 out of 14 in the total Democratic membership,
and 2 out of 10 in the Republican membership.
Also, Californian members make up 100% of the House membership of the Gang of Eight, , 2
Democratic and 2 Republican: respectively, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff; and Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes.
And lastly, both California Senators Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris (despite her
newbiness), are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the only State to have both Senators as
members.
As a decades long California resident, what sickens me the most about this is California
legislators (overwhelmingly Democratic Party, but may as well be Republican given the
stunning inequality/austerity imposed in California) preside over the highest numbers of
unsheltered homeless in the country. A full third of California residents have been forced
onto Medi-Cal (where millions can't find a treating doctor for the life of them), or don't
qualify (despite not being able to afford their rents), yet can't afford any insurance.
Concurrently, State Legislators and that duplicitous, slimy creep Newsom just signed off on
an Obama inspired California
Healthcare Mandate Penalty , although there were crickets at California's Franchise Tax
Board when it came to following the IRS in going after Facebook's stunning and blatant 2010
Ireland Asset transfers Tax evasion (to the tune of billions now, and next to impossible to
determine what the current status of it is), they would much rather go after their
increasingly impoverished populace who can't afford a CPA, let alone an attorney.
> In other words, the rightness of impeachment was never a consideration for Democratic
Party leaders.
Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the
table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless
surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later
normalized and rationalized all this, of course.)
So one would not have expected principle or the "rule of law" or any of those other
shibboleths to enter into the liberal Democrat decision-making process. It never does.
This person starts out with an establishing remark that convicts Trump, and goes on from
there. Unlike a true impeachment process, no 'real' groundwork is laid down. Furthermore, by
half-heartedly mentioning "issues" with the Pelosi formulation, in effect, that Biden is just
as bad as Trump, the author lays the groundwork for the 'impeachment' of both Party's "main"
candidates. The piece reminds me of the logic of the Alice in Wonderland trial: "Sentence
first – verdict afterwards." All this, my cynical sensibility reminds me, sotto voice,
for an insane Queen.
Impeachment has always been a political process. After all, it is a function of the Congress,
the prototype of politics. To take the authors buttressing point, that the 'essence' of
impeachment should be the pure logic of the deeds in question casts the entire process of
impeachment in the light of virtue signalling. How else would a disinterested observer
characterize a process where the process itself is not initiated with the anticipation of a
useful outcome? In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for
losing.
This piece, if any, shows plainly the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American
political process today. The two "leading" candidates of the "rival" Partys are both
delineated to be frauds, figuratively and literally. Turning the mentioning of the earlier
English Parliamentary 'version' of impeachment on, as it were, it's head, one is lead to
consider that only something as all encompassing and determinative as an actual bloodletting
will be of any use to the Nation.
Be very careful what you ask for. You might get it.
"Impeachment is the Constitution's version of the English Civil War, minus the war."
It could be argued that getting rid of a Prime Minister via a vote of no confidence is
orders of magnitude simpler than impeachment. In fact, it seems to happen about every ten or
twenty years on average in the UK. And no civil war required either.
The best analogue of today with then is that the English Civil War did not just remove the
Royalist leadership of the time, but an entire generation of Royalists. Does America really
want a twenty year interregnum?
We are already in the Interregnum. Trump was 'none of the above'. People talked about a
'clown car' and then Trump showed that a clown could actually accede to power, insofar as a
clown can manage the role. The Democrats responded with a clown show of their own. It's a
circus, although the clowns are pretty malign. Maybe people like that. Meanwhile, serious
people with serious political proposals, like Sanders, are on the outside looking in.
Someone's going to have to break a window.
Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's
changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly
filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than
ever?
All I can think of is that the Clinton derangement syndrome – the bitterness and
perceived injustice that the anointed one didn't get anointed – still has an iron grip
on the psyche of the DC Daristocrats. They're stone drunk on hatred, spite, and lust for
revenge and are hallucinating in broad daylight that they've got the hook to sell it.
I like the idea that this is all a clever ruse to keep the focus away from sanity in
health care etc., but it just doesn't look like they have that much sense. From the UK to the
the US, everyone's going nuts.
I bet it's good for fund raising, those I know who are most embarrassed by trump have a
fair amount of money and currently they are very excited. Whatever it is, it's not bernie (or
should I say &@cking bernie), it's not M4A, and it's not student loans, as commented on
above this line
It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves,
that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for
all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert
attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway
There is a huge amount of pressure from the public to get rid of Trump any way possible
and a lot of that, ironically, has been manufactured by the democrats themselves. That, I
suspect, combined with Hillary syndrome, is more what's behind this than the criminal, but
lucid, plan to obscure the popularity of programs benefiting the public.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the last 5 years of commentary then -- there's been
plenty of substance offered by those who are just as powerless as you.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
It's not clear the Democrats would notice any impropriety. What would be tearing them
apart is that they didn't get a seat at the trough (on the board) as well.
I would say 'Joe Biden's son's integrity' and 'the dubious right-wing Democratic Party
CIA-led arms sales-drive policy in the Ukraine.'
I don't think that Biden himself is particularly corrupt; the guy really is a terrible
hack. And I don't think legal corruption is necessarily what's at issue, but a world in which
it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and
help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment.
The wider context–villifying Russia, cleaning up Ukraine enough to justify
consorting with fascists and the far-right to keep all the balls in the air, needs to be
exposed.
There is a right way to do impeachment, and this ain't it. They could investigate the
Trump administrator for its rampant corruption – it's a very target-rich environment.
Instead, Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and
offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House
Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings
will happen behind closed doors.
So, they think that they're going to remove the duly elected
President behind closed doors, and they think the population will be okay with this? Do they
really live in such a bubble that they think people trust their judgment enough to do this?
It boggles the mind.
Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot
on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the
democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the
republicans or Trump (other than bombast).
Also, just a thought, having this discussion behind closed doors makes sense if Pelosi is
hoping they will come to their senses.
As to the right or wrong way to do impeachment, I think the democrats like the republicans
are simply beyond that or any notion of it other than the residue of dim memory that ends up
entirely as the decorative part in public speeches. I suspect they are quite simply oblivious
to such niceties as anything being wrong with using impeachment as a weapon rather than as a
means for justice.
I'm pretty sure Pelosi doesn't want it and wanted to repeat her 2007 play, but she doesn't
have 2008 certainty to offer (keep the powder dry I know but this was what that was about).
Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. The people who missed brunch
aren't exactly rationale or going to have this explained to them behind closed doors. Pelosi
has been slowly losing with the caucus, but most of the members are terrible and vulnerable
to an AOC-esque challenge especially in safe seats which most of the seats are. Again without
theven #resistance, safe seat Team Blue types are very vulnerable.
Adding that, imo, the rank and file voters did the work of electing Democrats to a House
majority, motivated partly by Clinton revenge, but also by policy issues. There's been
noticeable dismay in the corners of twitter where I wander at Pelosi's taking so long to act,
the inept performances of the few hearings so far, and now the proposed narrow focus.
my take is they're never actually going to pass articles of impeachment, which would hand
the process over to McConnell in the Senate. It will stay in the House and they will attempt
to nab Trump or perhaps one of his sidekicks like Giuliani on obstruction of the House
investigation. This is by now a fairly transparent strategy, and we will find out what the
elusive PA swing voter thinks of it soon enough.
As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership.
His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the
cause.
Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy
running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence,
halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged
in US media?
I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of
Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting
the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere.
Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will
not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not
declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter.
Here,
Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of
Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud
armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any
consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions
emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or
political refuge.
Wasn't the power to go to war exclusively reserved for Congress, to try to make sure that
the country wouldn't go to war on a lark? And wasn't the Bill of Rights enshrined to make
sure that the U.S. Government could not put people to death, at least without due
process?
I realize that this might mean that Congress would have had to impeach presidents left and
right. So be it; enlisted women and men can be severely punished for killing innocent people
(and for far less, such as disobeying orders). Why should presidents and vice-presidents
escape responsibility for high crimes of unjustifiable homicide (and, I must add,
countenancing torture)?
The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare
achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any
brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama.
Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of
the lies.
Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful,
prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME.
Is this the last desperation Hail Mary by the Democratic Party and the National Security
State to save themselves?
Has it already happened?
I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew
McCabe
has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to
watch that theater live
on a 60 inch screen.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
So we have three elements of the CIA operation Russiagate II: Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi and unknown person who authorized the
change in the form.
Notable quotes:
"... House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff supposedly sat on the 'whistleblower' complaint for over a month. ..."
"... By the way, the term whistleblower is a terrible misnomer, but everyone's using it, can't undo that anymore. Still, you can't be a CIA agent, be planted somewhere, leak on what goes on there and then be labeled a whistleblower. That works only if you share CIA secrets. ..."
"... Niceties aside, it appears that Schiff sat on the complaint since August 12 . First question is: why? But there are other questions as well. Two weeks ago, Schiff complained that acting DNI chief Joseph Maguire refused to share the contents of the complaint with Congress. But Maguire did that only after consulting with his legal counsel: ..."
"... Note the date. Also note the term 'urgent'. Which didn't keep Schiff from sitting on it for 5-6 weeks. And note that Schiff knew what was in the complaint, despite Politico reporting that "the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved Trump or other senior executive branch officials." ..."
"... Okay, so why did he sit on the letter? Is it possible this has been a set-up all along? Snippet no. 2 became known on September 24 ..."
"... Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting. ..."
"... The internal properties of the newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. ..."
"... Why were the changes made? Who authorized them? Can anyone who hears something from their gossipy aunt now become a whistleblower? Can the aunt? ..."
"... Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress [..] With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment. A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. ..."
"... "Pelosi called for impeachment without having seen the transcript or the complaint. That will forever be weird." ..."
"... PS: I don't get the attention for the whistleblower. The only interesting parties involved are the people who fed him/her their info. Are they also CIA by any chance? Let's ask them. ..."
Over the past few days, a series of snippets have appeared that each make me think: can this be true? The first such snippet is
that House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff supposedly sat on the 'whistleblower' complaint for over a month.
By the way, the term whistleblower is a terrible misnomer, but everyone's using it, can't undo that anymore. Still, you can't
be a CIA agent, be planted somewhere, leak on what goes on there and then be labeled a whistleblower. That works only if you share
CIA secrets.
Niceties aside, it appears that
Schiff sat on the complaint since August 12 . First question is: why? But there are other questions as well. Two weeks ago, Schiff
complained that acting DNI chief Joseph Maguire refused to share the contents of the complaint with Congress. But Maguire did that
only after consulting with his legal counsel:
Schiff ripped Maguire for breaching a law that requires him to share with Congress any whistleblower complaint deemed urgent
by the intelligence community's inspector general. He said the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved
Trump or other senior executive branch officials.
But DNI general counsel Jason Klitenic insisted in a letter to Schiff on Tuesday that Maguire had followed the letter of
the law in blocking the transmission of the complaint to Congress. The whistleblower statute governing his agency, he said, only
applies when the complaint involves a member of the intelligence community. Because it was aimed at a person outside the intelligence
community, he said, the whistleblower statute does not apply to this scenario.
Under the statute, Klitenic stated, deeming a whistleblower complaint "urgent" is only valid when it applies to conduct
by someone "within the responsibility and authority" of the DNI. Therefore, he said, after consulting with the Justice Department,
he determined the complaint did not qualify as an "urgent" concern requiring transmittal to Congress.
Note the date. Also note the term 'urgent'. Which didn't keep Schiff from sitting on it for 5-6 weeks. And note that Schiff knew
what was in the complaint, despite Politico reporting that "the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved
Trump or other senior executive branch officials."
Okay, so why did he sit on the letter? Is it possible this has been a set-up all along? Snippet no. 2 became known on September
24:
Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide
direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding
the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires
potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged
wrongdoing that they are reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump's
July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates
the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge
of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from others."
The internal properties of the newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form, which the intelligence community inspector
general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document
was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the
public.
Here's what the requirements looked like before the changes:
Why were the changes made? Who authorized them? Can anyone who hears something from their gossipy aunt now become a whistleblower?
Can the aunt?
And then a few days ago there was this little tid-bit, snippet no. 3, which seems to fit right into a pattern:
Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress [..]
With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct
the articles of impeachment. A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there has
always been a full house vote until now.
The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have
enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation
by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi's changed House
rules.
Anyone can be a whistleblower, all it takes is for the intelligence community to express an interest in your aunt's gossip. And
then anything anyone says can be used to draw up an article of impeachment. Which can then be voted on by the Democrat majority in
Congress, and accepted.
Which has no practical meaning, obviously, because there will be no Senate majority to actually impeach Trump. It's pure theater.
And anyway, impeached for what? For asking Ukraine assistance in investigating 2016 election meddling? Sure, you can rephrase that
as "digging up dirt", but isn't that phrasing by now a purely partisan thing and hence worthless?
I see two options. A few days ago I wrote: "Pelosi called for impeachment without having seen the transcript or the complaint.
That will forever be weird." If that is true, as we've been led to believe by both the protagonists and the press, it is weird
indeed. But now there is another option on the table.
Namely, that Pelosi has known the contents of the complaint since August 12, when the 'whistleblower' wrote to Adam Schiff, or
soon thereafter. And that she, too, sat on it. Urgent or not. And then a few days ago went all-in for impeachment. No matter what
the exact details here are, it very much looks like a well-prepared operation, step by step.
I started out with the term Twisted Pair for the US and UK, because both countries raise the question: how are they going to remain
governable? Leave or Remain, GOP or Democrat, the trenches are being dug deeper fast. The only way forward appears to be even deeper
divides. GOP and Democrats are a Twisted Pair all by themselves.
PS: I don't get the attention for the whistleblower. The only interesting parties involved are the people who fed him/her
their info. Are they also CIA by any chance? Let's ask them.
"... With so much deceit and shenanigans, it is best politicians let the voters decide in the next election rather than continue this circus. The article below argues the average American doesn't care if Trump isn't perfect and if the Democrats want him out they should offer up a better alternative. ..."
"... Globalist SES Infiltration, Subversion, De Facto Police State Coup D'Etat https://aim4truth.org/2018/01/03/deep-state-shadow-government-revealed-senior-executive-service/ ..."
"... I would call it a coup except I think it happened several decades ago. What is left is a shell. ..."
"... If that feels rotten, then you may start to understand why the world does like the USA not so much. ..."
"... This is clearly an attempted coup, i.e., removal of a duly elected President by force instead of by any legitimate political process. The leftists and RINOs have been trying by the most subversive of means to get rid of Trump even before he took office. ..."
"... Isn't it a matter of record who created and ordered the implementation of the revised whistleblower form? I know it was secretly uploaded two days before the blower blew (9/24), but why now and who said to? ..."
You don't need to be a supporter of President Trump to be concerned about the efforts to remove him from office. Last week House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment proceedings against the President over a phone call made to the President of Ukraine.
According to the White House record of the call, the President asked his Ukrainian counterpart to look into whether there is any
evidence of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and then mentioned that a lot of people were talking about how former US Vice
President Joe Biden stopped the prosecution of his son who was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine.
Democrats, who spent more than two years convinced that "Russiagate" would enable them to remove Trump from office only to have
their hopes dashed by the Mueller Report, now believe they have their smoking gun in this phone call.
It this about politics? Yes. But there may be more to it than that.
It may appear that the Democratic Party, furious over Hillary Clinton's 2016 loss, is the driving force behind this ongoing attempt
to remove Donald Trump from office, but at every turn we see the fingerprints of the CIA and its allies in the US deep state.
In August 2016, a former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, wrote an extraordinary article in the New York Times accusing
Donald Trump of being an "agent of the Russian Federation." Morell was clearly using his intelligence career as a way of bolstering
his claim that Trump was a Russian spy – after all, the CIA should know such a thing! But the claim was a lie.
Former CIA director John Brennan accused President Trump of "treason" and of "being in the pocket of Putin" for meeting with the
Russian president in Helsinki and accepting his word that Russia did not meddle in the US election. To this day there has yet to
be any evidence presented that the Russian government did interfere. Brennan openly called on "patriotic" Republicans to act against
this "traitor."
Brennan and his deep state counterparts James Comey at the FBI and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper launched
an operation, using what we now know is the fake Steele dossier, to spy on the Trump presidential campaign and even attempt to entrap
Trump campaign employees.
Notice a pattern here?
Now we hear that the latest trigger for impeachment is a CIA officer assigned to the White House who filed a "whistleblower" complaint
against the president over something he heard from someone else that the president said in the Ukraine phone call.
Shockingly, according to multiple press reports the rules for CIA whistleblowing were recently changed, dropping the requirement
that the whistleblower have direct, first-hand knowledge of the wrongdoing. Just before this complaint was filed, the rule-change
allowed hearsay or second-hand information to be accepted. That seems strange.
As it turns out, the CIA "whistleblower" lurking around the White House got the important things wrong, as there was no quid pro
quo discussed and there was no actual request to investigate Biden or his son.
The Democrats have suddenly come out in praise of whistleblowers – well not exactly. Pelosi still wants to prosecute actual whistleblower
Ed Snowden. But she's singing the praises of this fake CIA "whistleblower."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer once warned Trump that if "you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from
Sunday at getting back at you." It's hard not to ask whether this is a genuine impeachment effort or a CIA coup!
The WhatDoesItMean has earned a bad reputation over the years and I've avoided it as dis-info. But in recent months it seems
to had done a turn around and is providing good info.
both of whom are becoming increasingly alarmed over the grave military implications of what is now occurring -- the evidence
of which is being kept hidden from the American people by their socialist Democrat Party leaders and their leftist mainstream
media lapdogs
If the CIA is this brazen on so many attempts...and with no accountability yet, you could argue the coup already happened.
This is what a country run by a bunch of intelligence ppl looks like.
Epstein is not the top. Above Epstein are Soros, the Queen of England, and the Rockefeller/Rothschild's crime families. They
are the head of the Satanic (NOT JEWISH) "New World Order". Hey artisant when in hell are you going to actually get way down in
the rabbit hole and find out who is really behind globalism? You spout off the most stupid crap that takes you into mindless racism.
We as a corporate fascist socialist nation are much higher than Israel on the globalist hierarchy. They own our monetary system,
our corporate government with 22 trillion national debt, the military, and the intelligence alphabet agencies who are their right
enforcement arm.
Currently, a full-scale propaganda war rages with many Americans hell-bent on convincing the rest of us what is really going
on. I think it is clear we have reached the point where people are either outraged, simply concerned or take the attitude this
is all a big nothing burger or much ado about nothing.
With so much deceit and shenanigans, it is best politicians let the voters decide in the next election rather than continue
this circus. The article below argues the average American doesn't care if Trump isn't perfect and if the Democrats want him out
they should offer up a better alternative.
CIA finally coming home to roost. Never known to respect law or human rights outside the US now CIA applying "regime change"
inside the US. If that feels rotten, then you may start to understand why the world does like the USA not so much.
This is why the CIA is going to die under Haspel. I just read 3 dozen tweets on Sebastian Gorka's trip to Italy with Barr...None
of these liberals have a clue on what is going on in Italy...Which means they haven't a clue about the real Russia hoax and the
setup with Papadopolous. This says everything about our division in America.
The media has kept these people in the dark and this is why I keep saying the media companies need to be investigated and charged
with crimes.
The CIA and NSA are rogue foreign invaded and occupied) enemies of the State and should be surrounded by the military and seized
as a national security threat and a dangerous enemy. Everyone should be thrown out of the buildings controlled and occupied by
them and filled with military police until those who are true traitors can be identified and and arrested, including former employees
who still have highest level security access.
This is clearly an attempted coup, i.e., removal of a duly elected President by force instead of by any legitimate political
process. The leftists and RINOs have been trying by the most subversive of means to get rid of Trump even before he took office.
They have abandoned the peaceful political process and that leaves only force as a means to settle differences of opinion.
My hope is that the impeachment effort will backfire on the leftists in the House. Not only will they energize Trump's base,
but they will look bad to the rest of the non-communist public. And a bonus will be that Trump will be able to blame any pre-election
decline in the stock market and/or economy on the uncertainty created by their reckless and unjustified impeachment actions. (My
take is that the stock market is teetering on the edge of a cliff.)
This should be an interesting year between now and the elections with this impeachment **** show and what might come out of
the Justice Department relating to spygate and who was involved in it.
I almost fell like I am watching a new Game of Thrones episode.
Worst case is that Trump is actually removed from office and Civil War II breaks out. Best case is Trump wins by a landslide
in 2020 and Trump supporters take the House and improve their position in the Senate followed by a huge swamp drain during Trump's
second term.
They are not Judeo. They hide behind that term but have absolutely no bloodline connection to the Tribe of Judah from the Middle
East, they do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses. They worship Satan.
That you use that term shows your vast ignorance of the real enemies behind the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. It was funded
and orchestrated by the Rothschild/Rockefeller Satanic bankers. The Rothschild's are Khazarian Satanist who funded Marx and Engels
communist socialist creators!
This is how CIA toppled a duly elected Iranian government in 1953 and now we refuse to understand, why Iranians don´t like
us and don´t want our "democracy".
Sometimes you have to wonder if the CIA learned its lessons from the Kennedy Assassination, and decided this would be a more
humane way. As much as John Brennan hates Trump, I am sure he would disagree with me on that. Brennan is out for blood.
Time for Trump to declare martial law and have the military arrest all these treasonous cowards and pussies in the CIA, FBI,
and Demoncratic party. We'll just see how 'deep' their state is. Btw, Soros and Obama will be part of those arrests along with
Shillary and Billy Bob Clinton.
Its easy to find the guilty individuals as they protest the loudest.
99% of all Americans already recognize this as a coup. You just have to know which half is rooting for the coup to be successful,
and the ones who are rooting for failure.
'Impeachment Inquiry' is just a fancy schmancy label for it all, that third world countries can't be bothered with, when they
overthrow their President or dictator. At least those banana republics are honest about what they are actually doing when performing
their version of the overthrow.
The entire US Beast of Gog&Babylon Roman Catholic Church/Synagogue of Satan Vatican FedScam Rothschild/Rockefeller Pyramid's
Satanic Fifth Column must, with precision, be 'tagged and bagged,' fully expropriated, its principals hanged for Treason, the
remainder banished from Our Holy Land.
CIA/FBI/NSA is just an 'action branch' of mechanics and operatives, who too must hang.
Need to cut the head off the snake,ie the deep deep state, the ones who's names are not even uttered in fear of reprisal, the
rest are just actors in this theater of the absurd.
Damn good point. Trump praised Wikileaks all through his campaign. A great investigation into Epstein and his connections to
Clinton, Mossad, Orwellian crime detection software and 9/11.
More than half of the country realizes this is a Deep State coup, led by Brennan's CIA traitors. If they get away with this,
our country is all but finished, we have to bring all hands on deck to defeat these treasonous scum. We will support President
Trump 110% and pray that the white hats in Washington will have the goods on all the traitors.
Isn't it a matter of record who created and ordered the implementation of the revised whistleblower form? I know it was
secretly uploaded two days before the blower blew (9/24), but why now and who said to? That name should be at least on Fox
from 8:00-11:00 for the next 3 weeks, while Lindsey is sending out subpoenas like barf at a sat night frat party. Let em flow
Senator.
President Trump took to Twitter Sunday night to continue to air his grievances surrounding
the impeachment inquiry, amplifying the remarks of his allies, who have made delivered
various warnings and denouncements about the impacts of impeachment, including the
possibility of a "Civil War-like fracture in this nation."
He used a series of tweets to quote Fox News contributor Robert Jeffress, a pastor who
invoked the Civil War in his comments on the cable network Sunday night.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
....Election, and negate the votes of millions of Evangelicals in the process. They know
the only Impeachable offense that President Trump has committed was beating Hillary Clinton
in 2016. That's the unpardonable sin for which the Democrats will never forgive him.....
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will
never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will
never heal." Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
Jeffress suggested he had never seen Evangelical Christians more upset over any issue
than the impeachment of Trump.
A fellow GOP lawmaker tweeted last night that Trump's use of the quote was "beyond
repugnant." Representative Adam Kinzinger said Sunday that he could have "never imagined such
a quote to be repeated by a President."
Nixon would have been okay if he used the FBI and CIA like Obama did.
Nixon did not enjoy the watering down of the Bill of Right from the Patriot Act, who use
was perfected by Obama's deep state and the permanent war/spying swamp.
"... After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental" organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation, and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today. ..."
"... There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government involvement. ..."
"... It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement in Hong Kong for years. ..."
"... Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream media? ..."
"... The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups that there was a reduction in their power. ..."
"... The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. ..."
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your Twitter account has just been closed. Why?
Daniel McAdams: In August I was watching a segment of the Sean Hannity program while at a friend's house and noticed that despite
an hour of Hannity ranting against the "deep state" in the US, he was wearing a lapel pin bearing the seal of the US Central Intelligence
agency, which most would agree is either the center or at least an important hub of the US "deep state" itself. I tweeted about
this strange anomaly and as a comment to my own Tweet on it I happened to say that Hannity is "retarded." Twitter informed me
that I had committed "hateful conduct" for "promoting violence against or directly attacking or threatening other people on the
basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability,
or disease." It is clear on its face that I did none of these. I used a non-politically correct term to ridicule Hannity for attacking
the "deep state" while wearing the symbols of the deep state on his very lapel.
It is clear that Twitter is deeply biased against any voices outside the mainstream, pro-empire perspective. As a leading Tweeter
in opposition to interventionist US foreign policy, I had long been targeted by those who enable and enforce Twitter's political
biases. Look at who Twitter partners with and you will understand why I was banned for a transparently false reason: the US government-funded
Atlantic Council and other similar organizations are working with Twitter to eliminate any voices challenging US global military
empire.
In your opinion, what exactly is the role of the CIA in the regime changes of some countries around the world?
From its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency carried the dual role of analyzing
intelligence for its customers in the Executive Branch of the US government and conducting covert actions and operations in pursuit
of (claimed) US foreign policy goals. The history of CIA action in post-war Europe is extensive and includes founding front organizations
to prop up socialist and far-left publications and institutions as a challenge to Soviet communism as well as backing far-right
groups and political parties and even violent terror organizations to directly confront communism and overturn elections where
communists made gains.
After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a
global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted
US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental"
organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods
developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation,
and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic
government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today.
The practical value to the United States of such operations is less than zero, the costs to the American taxpayer are enormous,
and the immorality of manipulating the globe toward an outcome preferred by Washington's elites is self-evident.
When we see the generalized NSA surveillance, do you think we live in a democracy or a tenebrous fascist regime?
Americans have been manipulated by the elites in government and its allies in state propaganda (otherwise known as the "mainstream
media") to accept, particularly post-9/11, the deeply anti-American proposition that we must yield our privacy and Constitutionally-guaranteed
civil liberties to a government that promises it will not abuse its increased power over us but will only use it to keep us safe.
These promises have been over and over again proven to be lies. Government is not targeting terrorism or terrorists: they are
targeting average American citizens.
Americans were told that only terrorists' phone calls would be intercepted, but then Edward Snowden revealed that all of our
phone calls are intercepted. Americans were mad for a few weeks but then Washington promised "reform" of the PATRIOT Act in the
form of the FREEDOM Act and everybody calmed down. Even though the FREEDOM Act is actually worse than the PATRIOT Act because
it legalized all of the illegal activities that were taking place under the PATRIOT Act. "Reform" in Washington means obfuscation
and perception manipulation.
Likewise, Americans seeking to travel within their own country have been forced to allow strangers to invade and touch the
most private areas of their bodies – and their children's bodies! American sheep just bow to the authorities and keep watching
their freedoms stolen from them, murmuring to themselves as they are raped by the authorities, "well I have nothing to hide "
You mentioned one time Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA manipulated journalists in the 1950s. In your opinion, does the CIA
continue to use these same practices today?
I have no doubt that the CIA continues to maintain a close relationship with both mainstream and independent journalists. This
is critical to establishing and controlling the narrative in each foreign "crisis." It is no accident that each mainstream media
outlet – regardless whether left-wing or right-wing or any wing - has the exact same perspective on events like the Ukraine coup
or the Venezuela attempted coup, or Hong Kong protests. Part of this is the US "deep state" or "national security state" and part
of it is the increasing integration of US corporate entities into the US government. Major media outlets are owned by US corporations
that also own weapons manufacturing companies and cannot be trusted to report on events objectively. Similarly, virtually every
US mainstream media outlet employs "former" members of the US intelligence community to "explain" foreign events to their viewers.
When is the last time a credible non-interventionist or pro-peace analyst has been featured in any mainstream media outlet?
As in Soviet times, any view at odds with Washington's "party line" is simply disappeared. When independent media outlets begin
gaining traction and challenging the narrative, they are "de-platformed" on social media and even from their Internet service
providers under the recommendations of US government-funded NGOs like the Atlantic Council or the German Marshal Fund.
Is not what is currently happening in Hong Kong a CIA manipulation targeting China in the context of the Trump administration's
economic war?
There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single
body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see
the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government
involvement.
It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement
in Hong Kong for years. They don't even hide it: you can easily find on USAID and National Endowment for Democracy website
the level of funding the US government provides these organizations and political parties. And when these party leaders come to
Washington, they are received by the US Vice President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, and other high-ranking US government
officials. Which foreign opposition movements that Washington does not support are given such treatment?
Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly
went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist
Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream
media?
You mentioned a US-supported coup when you talked about Venezuela. In your opinion, does the US administration continue the same
interventionist policy to destabilize Latin American countries?
Any Latin American government not in Washington's constellation has been and is targeted for destabilization and overthrow.
We saw this with the 2009 coup in Honduras, whose architect was then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We see it in Cuba. We
see it in Venezuela. We saw it with Ecuador, where a government wary of US persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was
"changed" in favor of a regime that handed Assange over to the authorities in exchange for a few billion dollars from the IMF.
Do what Washington says and get paid; oppose Washington and get overthrown. That is the foreign policy of the US empire. And like
the Soviet empire that preceded it, it is a policy doomed to failure.
Why in your opinion does the United States always need an enemy? Is not there a danger of world war when we see the multitude
of US imperialist interventions around the world?
The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its
elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class
America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge
the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their
families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on
terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted
in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups
that there was a reduction in their power.
After the Russian and Iranian success in beating back the jihadist threat in Syria, the 2017 US national security strategy
did an Orwellian about-face and abandoned the "war on terror" in favor of a declaration that our new enemies were again our old
enemies: China and Russia. It is literally Orwell's 1984: "we are at war with Eastasia. We had always been at war with Eastasia."
What do you think about the North Korean and Iranian case, where the Trump administration lacks a clear vision and where some
neoconservatives are pushing for a war?
There are few consistencies in President Trump's foreign policy. One emerging consistency, however, is that he seems genuinely
reluctant to take the country into a bona fide war. He's happy with sending a few dozen Tomahawk missiles into the Syrian countryside,
but when faced with an actual robust response to any US strike, he to this point has chosen de-escalation. This may be a function
of his keen eye for politics rather than any philosophical or moral concerns, but it to this point seems thematic. The problem
is that by surrounding himself with neoconservatives – and make no mistake his replacement for Bolton is at least as much a neocon
as the Mustached One himself – the president is isolating himself from any inputs advising military constraint when facing crises
overseas. That is why many of us were so much hoping that Bolton would be replaced with a Realist like Col. Douglas Macgregor.
There is a big danger that the president will be cornered by a lack of non-war options to the next crisis simply because he gives
no quarter to non-war voices in his administration.
When we consider the plight of activists and whistleblowers, such as Assange, Snowden, etc. can we still talk about freedom of
speech and human rights? Shouldn't we mobilize more to support these activists and others around the world?
The plight of Snowden and Assange and all of the persecuted whistleblowers and truth-tellers is the plight of what is life
of our liberty, freedom, and even Western civilization. When all dissent is quashed, imprisoned, tortured, we are left with only
the Total State. The Total State, as we know from history, brooks no dissent because it can only maintain power by continuing
the illusion that it alone is the source of truth. Thus any voice challenging the Total State, as the embodiment of truth, must
on its face be a lie. Why would truth allow lies to undermine it? Why would any sane person oppose "the people" as represented
in their Soviet government? Surely such a person would be insane and need of treatment rather than a citizen raising a legitimate
question or differing opinion.
This is what we are facing in the US today. A Total State, where opposing views are de-platformed and disappeared. Where truth-tellers
are jailed and tortured – pour servir d'avertissement aux autres (to serve as a warning to others).
What is your assessment of the Trump Presidency and what do you think of its foreign policy?
The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch
foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along
with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative
cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. He did not chart a wise course
in building a solid administration of professionals who agree with him – and there are plenty to choose from – and instead he
actually hired an entire team of people who not only disagree with his stated positions, but they actually publicly ridicule them
and work against them. It is unprecedented in my memory to see those who serve the president publicly undermining his stated positions,
yet Bolton and Pompeo never hesitated or hesitate to do just that. This is an enormous missed opportunity for President Trump
and for the United States.
You have been an advisor to Congressman Ron Paul and you are doing an excellent job as Director of the Ron Paul Institute for
Peace and Prosperity. Can you explain to our readers what the missions of this institute are?
Our mission as a non-profit educational institution is to make the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the restoration
of our civil liberties at home. We are the continuation of the Ron Paul liberty movement. To that end, we publish thousands of
articles making the case for non-interventionism on our website, we broadcast a daily Ron Paul Liberty Report, and we hold conferences
throughout the country bringing together a broad coalition of Americans – and non-Americans – to learn and promote peace and prosperity!
* * *
Daniel McAdams is executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-host of the "Ron Paul Liberty
Report," a daily live broadcast. He served for 12 years on Capitol Hill as foreign affairs and national security advisor to former
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former
communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
Seems that the opposition press wants us to display mob outrage to make Trump foreign
policy for him.
The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the
regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over.
A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and
FBI.
It takes a lot more than some good at grammar NYTimes writer to substantiate claims that
allegations against the former VP and his son's cushy Ukraine oligarch job are
unsubstantiated. That is work for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when
Biden was VP. Out of context is no reason to make a conclusion.
Why I support impeachment. The evidence will be put out and the solicitors will argue on
complete evidentiary lines. It is getting to be anything Trump wants to do they find some
phony reason to be outraged.
I did a 20 minute telephone poll today. They called me! You can count on one respondent
"strongly opposed" to impeachment for trying to get to the bottom of Biden family
corruption.
"A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and
FBI."
No. Nothing new here. This is just Russiagate II. Same actors, same methods.
But it is unclear to me why they even bothered? Trump folded long ago, In April 2017 to be
exact. And before impeachment, his chances in 2020 were far from certain. Especially against
Warren.
Also Biden should not even be discussed anymore. At this point he is history.
Warren now is the official frontrunner. Which is probably the only good thing emerging out
of this CIA-inspired mess.
The democrats are in the midst (started when Obama ignored the source of the fallacious
dossier which started the FISA spying on a campaign) of a strategic blunder. The polling on
Ukrainegate show it is libelously political. Democrat respondents largely see it serious,
independents are about 40% and GOP about 30%. This nugatory+, political ambush is not playing
well to independents!
No one is asking if this nugatory, political ambush the CIA/democrats are using to run a
circus in congress is troubling about Biden. As you say Biden is history, as are the
democrats' chances in 2020 for every national office.
Ukraine's most recent popularity among cold warriors started when Bill Clinton decided that
NATO should surround Russia. Coincidental with breaking and continuity of certain oligarchs'
fortunes. up Serbia.
Then the pro West coup in 2014....
Maybe as part of the impeachment the house could go in to what US was doing in Kyiv up to
and through the coup.
Note in the article Javelin systems are a foreign military sales case, run by the DoD,
"approved" by Depts of Commerce and State.
Javelin, guided anti tank missile system, is not solely a defensive weapon unless you look
at U S Grant on Richmond as a defensive campaign...... Reply Monday, September 30, 2019 at 06:50 AM ilsm said in reply to
Fred C. Dobbs... "Deductive reasoning" within the media message is mob control.
"It ain't what you know... it's what you know that ain't so"#. Keep reading the mainstream
media!
Given enough time [and strategy wrt 2020 election] we will get to the bottom of Obama's
"criminal influence" on 2016 election.
It takes a lot more to debunk the Biden, Clinton, Nuland, Obama Ukraine drama. To my mind,
Ukraine needs to be clean as driven snow* to "earn" javelins to kill Russian speaking
rebels.
Why do US from Obama+ fund rebels in Syria (Sunni radicals mainly) and want to send tank
killers to suppress rebels where we might get in to the real deal?
# conservatives have been saying that about the 'outrage' started by the MSM for
decades.
"No one is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
as she announced the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump over the Ukraine matter. The
phrase has become a Democratic mantra in the new impeachment push. But it could, in the end,
serve to highlight the weakness of the Democratic strategy.
The reason is, by stressing that Trump is not "above the law," Democrats are basing their
case against the president on the argument that he broke the law and must be held accountable.
But it's not at all clear that Trump broke any laws in the Ukraine matter. In the face of a
vigorous Republican defense, any argument on that question is likely to end inconclusively.
Democrats might better say, "No president is above impeachment," which lacks punch but is
more accurate. Doing so, however, would emphasize the political nature of the battle and could
make it more difficult for Democrats to win broad support for removing Trump. So they say "No
one is above the law." But what, exactly, does that mean?
In his analysis of the case, the intelligence community's inspector general, Michael
Atkinson, wrote that Trump might have violated campaign finance laws. "U.S. laws and
regulations prohibit a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from making a contribution or
donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," Atkinson
wrote. "Similarly, U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a person from soliciting, accepting, or
receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national, directly or indirectly, in
connection with a Federal, State, or local election."
That is, it appears, the strongest legal case against the president. Remember, in an
impeachment, no one is talking about criminal charges, so Justice Department guidelines that
the president cannot be indicted are irrelevant. The issue is whether Democrats will seek to
show that Trump violated the law, in order to strengthen their case that he must be impeached
and removed from office.
The problem is that the campaign finance question is highly debatable. The Democratic case
is this: Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate allegations that Joe
Biden and son Hunter Biden were involved in corruption in Ukraine. Any information Zelensky
provided to Trump would be a "thing of value" and thus an illegal foreign campaign
contribution.
"I think it's absurd," Bradley Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chair and a
frequent critic of campaign finance laws, said in an email exchange. "If 'anything of value'
were interpreted so broadly, it would mean that foreign governments are consistently violating
the ban in foreign spending, whenever they take official actions that may benefit one candidate
or another. Similarly, Americans would have to report such activity to the FEC. That is clearly
not the law."
"Absent the partisan juices that Trump sets off," Smith concluded, "no election law attorney
would ever say otherwise."
Smith's view of current campaign finance law reflects the attitudes of many Republicans and
conservatives. They see the laws as an infringement on political speech and see attempts to
broadly interpret those laws as a way to tighten limits on speech. (By the way, they have felt
that way for decades; it has nothing to do with Trump.)
A more practical analysis of what is wrong with applying the "things of value" standard in
the Trump-Ukraine case came from, of all places, the Mueller report. The special counsel's
prosecutors considered charging Trump campaign officials, including Donald Trump, Jr., with a
campaign finance violation in relation to the infamous June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. The
Mueller report contained a detailed analysis of the issues involved and the reasons why the
special counsel's prosecutors concluded they could not make a winning case.
The issue involved Russians offering allegedly incriminating information on Hillary Clinton
to the Trump campaign. Even if Mueller believed he could convince a jury that the information
was a "thing of value" -- in effect, an illegal campaign contribution -- he had to concede that
"no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research
or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under
campaign-finance law."
Mueller was also unable to show that the Trump campaign officials knew the law enough to
know that accepting information might violate campaign finance statutes. Finally, Mueller had
no confidence that he could prove the offered information was actually worth anything. (The law
requires prosecutors to prove the information was worth at least $2,000 for a misdemeanor
charge and at least $25,000 for a felony charge.)
Discussing the Mueller Trump Tower issue, the former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
wrote : "So, while there might be some conceivable scenario in which acquiring information
from a foreign source for use in a campaign could be a federal crime, it is highly unlikely --
so unlikely that some Type A prosecutors wisely decided that the huzzahs they'd have gotten for
indicting the president's son were outweighed by the humiliation they'd endure when the case
inevitably got thrown out of court."
Weak as it is, the campaign finance violation case appears to be the Democrats' best chance
of showing Trump broke the law. But there are other possible cases. Some suggest Trump might
have solicited a bribe by offering foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden. That
would be an extraordinarily difficult argument to make.
Others suggest Trump obstructed justice -- another long shot. And still others suggest Trump
was involved in a conspiracy, which would require a showing not only that the president
committed crime but that he conspired with others to do it. Yet another long shot.
The bottom line is, it will be very, very hard for House Democrats to show that Trump
committed a crime in the Ukraine affair. Which is why some Democrats seem to be moving toward
accusing Trump of engaging in misconduct that is more difficult to define, like violating his
oath of office or betraying his country. Those are charges that seem solemn and weighty, but
are also fuzzy enough to use without getting into any detailed -- and losing -- legal
argument.
The Constitution says a president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." There has been a very
long debate on what that means. To lay ears, it sounds like the president must be shown to have
committed a crime to be impeached and removed from office. But the framers did not define "high
crimes and misdemeanors," and it is up to Congress to decide whether a president should be
impeached, and, if so, on what grounds.
So far, Democrats have not helped their cause by accusing Trump of criminal behavior. "No
man is above the law" sounds good, but it requires the impeachers to make a case that the
president did, indeed, break the law. In coming days, look for Democrats to seek an easier
route.
Thank you for your courage and skills in defensing your views while being a minority in a
somewhat hostile to your views blog community.
In Trump impeachment, Pelosi "no one is above the law" stance could backfire on
hypocritical Democrats in such way that Warren, unfortunately, might lose the election. Her
own stupidity of jumpling on impelachment bandwagon does not help either. She would be better
off pretending being neutral. That just proved again that she is a mediocre politician. I
still like her due to her
"The two income trap" book(2004) and anti-Wall-Street stance. In a sense, she is better Trump
then Trump ;-).
People living in a glass house should not throw stones: most senior members of Obama
administration (including Obama himself) belong to jail. As war criminals (Hillary, Obama,
Nuland, Kerry, etc), pay for play fraudster and violator of rules for handing classified
information(Hillary). For forming a criminal gang with explicit goal to reverse the results
of the election and conduct snooping of Trump inner cycle (Brennan, Clapper, Mueller, Comey,
McCabe, Samantha Power, etc). Protection of other members of administration criminality
(Loretta Lynch, Bruce Ohr, etc) And that's only a tip of the iceberg.
Nobody here can even imagine the amount of dirt and criminal actions Obama administration
accumulated by their actions in Ukraine. Which might soon surface, if Trump is really as
vindictive as opponents are trying to present him.
Look at amazing interview of Stephen Miller at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXUWHk7sqe0
for possibilities. Stephen Miller proved again that he is really sharp guy far superior to
this old neoliberal hen Wallace... And a very dangerous opponent for this overconfident
jerk.
The truth is that Obama administration supported a neo-fascist party and cooperated with
and financed and later armed neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine to achieve geopolitical victory over
Russia (other important players in this dirty game were Germany, Poland and Sweden).
"Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar. "
Of course, one would only welcome that Pelosi just dived head on into Ukrainian mud
(Michelle Obama might not happy, though).
Trump is serious opponent in mud wrestling for Pelosi (5'5, 131 pound) and not only
because he is 6'2, 236 pounds.
The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worm starting from
Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
).
And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate
(including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition
of war crimes.
If Trump wants, not a single member of Obama administration can emerge unscathed from
this. He can tarnish Obama legacy forever in a way Iraq war and Abu Ghraib tarnished forever
Bush II administration.
He also can sink Brennan by asking Zelensky to open archives with protocols of talks with
Ukrainian officials during Brennan visits to Kiev.
Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members of
Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands.
I think Team Pelosi at the behest of the intelligence services freaked out when they saw
Trump going to Ukraine to get to the bottom of the allegations against him. They have created
their narrative Russiagate being conveniently replaced by Ukrainegate. They will aggressively
push their narrative through the mainstream media.
Trump, if he gets organized, will push his narrative through Fox and the conservative echo
chamber.
So far, advantage Democrats/CIA. Pretty good for a hapless bunch of politicians
incapable of putting together a message coherent enough to win an election!
However, there is a lot of information out there to raise questions about what Biden was
really up to in Ukraine:
As I noted earlier, the plot is Byzantine. The winner will be the side with the most
superficially plausible story. But both Trump and Biden are likely to be damaged severely in
the process and for that we can be grateful.
As Schumer said "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six
ways from Sunday at getting back at you," "So, even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this," he added.
Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory
Was 'Completely Debunked' https://nyti.ms/2mUMP99
NYT - Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Maggie Haberman
and Peter Baker - September 29
WASHINGTON -- President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine
conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was "completely debunked" long before
the president pressed Ukraine this summer to investigate his Democratic rivals, a former top
adviser said on Sunday.
Thomas P. Bossert, who served as Mr. Trump's first homeland security adviser, said he told
the president there was no basis to the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, intervened in the
2016 election and did so on behalf of the Democrats. Speaking out for the first time, Mr.
Bossert said he was "deeply disturbed" that Mr. Trump nonetheless tried to get Ukraine's
president to produce damaging information about Democrats.
Mr. Bossert's comments, on the ABC program "This Week" and in a subsequent telephone
interview, underscored the danger to the president as the House moves ahead with an inquiry
into whether he abused his power for political gain. Other former aides to Mr. Trump said on
Sunday that he refused to accept reassurances about Ukraine no matter how many times it was
explained to him, instead subscribing to an unsubstantiated narrative that has now brought
him to the brink of impeachment.
The latest revelations came as the impeachment inquiry rushed ahead at a brisk pace. The
House chairman taking the lead said that the whistle-blower who brought the matter to light
would testify soon and that a subpoena for documents would be issued early this week to
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer who spearheaded the effort to find dirt
on Democrats in Ukraine. In a letter to the acting director of national intelligence, lawyers
for the whistle-blower requested stepped-up efforts to ensure his safety, citing "serious
concerns we have regarding our client's personal safety."
As Democrats pressed forward, a new poll showed that a majority of Americans supported an
impeachment inquiry for the first time, a worrying development for a White House that until
now has been able to make the argument that the public opposed impeaching Mr. Trump. A senior
White House aide tried to turn the tables by arguing that Mr. Trump was the real
whistle-blower because he was uncovering Democratic corruption.
As Republicans struggled to defend the president on Sunday, Mr. Bossert's remarks offered
a hint of cracks in the Republicans' armor. While Mr. Bossert was forced out in 2018 when
John R. Bolton became national security adviser, he has remained publicly loyal until now to
a president who prizes fealty above all else.
"It is completely debunked," Mr. Bossert said of the Ukraine theory on ABC. Speaking with
George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Bossert blamed Mr. Giuliani for filling the president's head with
misinformation. "I am deeply frustrated with what he and the legal team is doing and
repeating that debunked theory to the president. It sticks in his mind when he hears it over
and over again, and for clarity here, George, let me just again repeat that it has no
validity."
He added that pressing Ukraine's president was disturbing, but noted that it remained
unproven whether Mr. Trump's decision to withhold aid to Ukraine was tied to the demand for
investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.
"It is a bad day and a bad week for this president and for this country if he is asking
for political dirt on an opponent," Mr. Bossert said. "But it looks to me like the other
matter that's far from proven is whether he was doing anything to abuse his power and
withhold aid in order to solicit such a thing." On Twitter on Sunday evening, he added that
he did "not see evidence of an impeachable offense."
Other former aides said separately on Sunday that the president had a particular weakness
for conspiracy theories involving Ukraine, which in the past three years has become the focus
of far-right media outlets and political figures. Mr. Trump was more willing to listen to
outside advisers like Mr. Giuliani than his own national security team.
Mr. Trump has known Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, for years and likes his
pugnacious approach and the fact that he never pushes back, said one former aide, who like
others asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. Mr. Giuliani would "feed Trump
all kinds of garbage" that created "a real problem for all of us," said the former aide.
House Democrats may try to explore that as they move expeditiously in their inquiry.
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on
Sunday that the whistle-blower whose complaint rocked Washington last week would testify
"very soon" and that Mr. Giuliani would be ordered to turn over documents.
Mr. Schiff, a former prosecutor who is the de facto chief of the inquiry, also issued a
pointed warning to Mr. Trump and the White House, who have a history of blocking
congressional requests for witnesses and records. "If they're going to obstruct, then they
are going to increase the likelihood that Congress may feel it necessary to move forward with
an article of obstruction," he said on "This Week."
Mr. Trump continued his bellicose attacks on his accusers. "I want Schiff questioned at
the highest level for Fraud & Treason," he wrote on Twitter. And he threatened the
whistle-blower, who is protected by law from retribution. "Was this person SPYING on the U.S.
President? Big Consequences!"
Republicans have had a tough time defending Mr. Trump and have mostly tried to redirect
the conversation to suggest that Mr. Biden engaged in wrongdoing. Representative Steve
Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican in the House, repeatedly changed the subject on
Sunday when Chuck Todd, the moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," pressed him on whether he
believed a summary transcript of the Ukraine call merited further investigation. ...
(Wikipedia: Tom Bossert was officially appointed to the post of Homeland Security Advisor
(officially titled the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism)
on January 20, 2017, the date of President Trump's entrance into office. ...
On April 10, 2018, Bossert resigned a day after John R. Bolton, the newly-appointed
National Security Advisor, started his tenure.)
This is deep state operation, Russiagate II, pure and simple
Stephen Miller proved to be formidable debater. His jeremiad against the Deep State at 12:55 was brilliant. Former South
Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy says people have stopped sharing information with the House Intelligence Committee because
Chair Adam Schiff is the most deeply partisan member who is "leaking like a sieve"
The problem with Pelosi bold move is that she does not have votes for impeachment, but the dirt uncovered might sink any
Democrat changes for 2020
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Miller is amazing at wrestling and smacking down this Democratic Operative Chris Wallace ..."
"... Wallace is a minion of the globalists. ..."
"... Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States. Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN. ..."
"... Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy Official Docs and State Department Docs. ..."
"... Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't. ..."
Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government
affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States.
Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN.
Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the
Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer
speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or
you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy
Official Docs and State Department Docs.
Wallace you sir you are a paritsan hack. Anyone can
read the docs too thats whats sad. I'm only 70 pages in and its bad for the Biden's jailtime
bad.
Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct
anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't.
Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to
investigate Biden. The fact is that there is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The
story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. You don't need to know
anything about the Ukranian prosecutor or what he was doing. You don't need to know anything
about Biden's son or the son's business dealings. You just have to listen to Biden himself
tell the story.
Two facts are plain in the story as Biden tells it. That he coerced compliance as to
Ukraine's internal governance, and that he used $1 billion of US foreign aid money as an
instrument of extortion in order to do it. He himself says so.
President Trump says in that phone call that, "What Joe Biden did was shameful," a
statement with which I cannot help but agree. The media's comment in their followup was a
stunning, "There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong."
That's accurate - 100%. I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup"
movement, probably triggered more than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of
military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace with the Russians.
She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in. But I have grown cynical.
This Wednesday night article in the NY Times strengthened my outlook in such regard,
especially the passage I quote below:
Quote:
Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee, overseeing the secretive workings of America's national security
apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials file
whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress.
EndQuote.
Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released
to the public? And while we're at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary,
Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties.
Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between
Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at
Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent experience was being
discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural
gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in
Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?
Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund
launched by Hunter and John Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any
experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the
investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to
raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What
was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know.
TTG - apologies for butting in but this is still something that has not been put past doubt -
" I'm still convinced one of the ultimate goals of that fiasco was to make Sevastopol
into a NATO naval base."
The precise aims of the tragic Ukrainian venture are still unclear. They can be deduced
but not evidenced. That is as far as I know also the case with Sevastopol.
The only written evidence I've seen in that case is the US Navy project to upgrade a
school, which I doubt is one of the reasons for your view.
There was no evidence in the tender documents of adaptation of the school for military
purposes and similar renovations contracts had been put out to tender elsewhere. It's also
scarcely likely that had the school been intended for military purposes the US Navy would
have advertised the fact in 2013.
Nevertheless it's clear that had the venture in the Ukraine worked the Russians would
sooner or later have been deprived of the use of their Sevastopol base. It may be safely
assumed therefore that that was one object of the venture. Do you believe that as well as
that there was a plan to replace it with a US Navy base? It would surely have been a most
vulnerable one.
English Outsider, I don't think the Sevastopol school renovation was part of a desire to
remove the Russian fleet from the port or eventually replace than with NATO vessels. It was
just one of many little civil projects we sponsored as part of our overall Ukraine project.
But I assume the goal of Russia out and NATO in at Sevastopol was a major goal of our
Ukrainian venture. I think the Russians sensed this as well and this was a driving force in
their decision to seize the Crimea when they did.
Thanks, TTG. Decidedly an off-topic enquiry of mine in this complex and fascinating thread,
I'm afraid. But what happened in 13/14/15 is a subject that for me remains central.
You mentioned earlier the Nuland tape - perhaps the moment when it truly became impossible
for anyone to pretend that the Neocon narrative on the Ukraine was valid. But it didn't seem
to make a lot of odds in the long run. It's a sobering thought that that narrative still
holds for most.
I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance
at the ballot box and that a majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the
propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of Trump overall except for
a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic.
Have we really reached the stage where an American Praetorian guard picks our President
and the ballot box and electoral college become Imperial window dressing?
I'm a left leaning Independent but I hope that the Democrats get a tremendous whipping at
the ballot box in 2020. I plan to do my small part in that.
As part of the Trump administration's Sunday talk-show blitz trying to deescalate the
Ukraine whistle-blower crisis, White House adviser and senior xenophobe Stephen Miller spoke
with Fox News' Chris Wallace about how the president, once again, is not the bad guy in a
scandal in which he was caught doing bad things. This time around, as Trump faces an
impeachment inquiry for withholding aid to Ukraine while pressuring President Volodymyr
Zelenksy to investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden (followed by the
administration's attempt to cover up the exchange), Miller went on Fox News Sunday to inform
the public that the president is the only option for real democracy in America.
"Do you want a democracy in this country or do you want a deep state?" Miller asked and
answered. "It's a binary choice for the American people." He may have forgotten the word
"false" in there before "binary."
Miller also attacked the intelligence officer who reported Trump's behavior, lamenting
that the term "whistle-blower" has been appointed to them. To Miller, it's an "honorific that
this individual most certainly does not deserve. A partisan hit job does not make you a
whistle-blower just because you go through the Whistle-blower Protection Act." Of course, by
protocol, that's exactly what this individual is, as confirmed in Thursday's testimony from
the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who stated that the
whistle-blower acted "by the book and followed the law."
During the Fox News Sunday interview, Miller also offered a galaxy-brain take on Trump's
role in the developing scandal, claiming that the president is the real whistle-blower in
the crisis. "The president of the United States is the whistle-blower and this individual is
a saboteur trying to undermine a democratically elected government," Miller said.
It's a perspective that does contain some truth, although one might need to zoom out much
further than Miller intends for the comparison to be helpful. If Trump is a whistle-blower,
then he's telling on himself, revealing just how corrupt a presidency can get when all legal
and ethical concerns are dropped at the expense of personal gain.
Trump refuses to condemn Obama's coup against Ukraine, but if he cared about the truth, he
would, and the worst that could happen to him then would be that, for once in his life, he'd be
fighting for truth, and not just for himself.
Biden extorted a $2 million dollar payoff from the Ukraine laundered by putting his
totally unqualified coke head son on the Board of Directors of a the National Gas Company of
the Ukraine.
Then Biden took a $1.5 million dollar payment laundered through multiple off shore wire
transfers.
Military Tech was transferred to China
Then Biden sold his Office of VP to the Chinese for $1.5 Billion Dollars
the payment was laundered as an investment in a Hedge Fund created by his coke head son
and Kerry's step son. .
"Notably, the younger Biden sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma - collecting
$50,000 per month despite having no previous experience in the field, nor being an investor.
His only qualification appears to have been a very connected daddy - who happened to threaten
to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees unless Ukraine's top prosecutor, who was
investigating Burisma, was fired. "
By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered then-Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company
that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that
Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Today, I write to express concern about another Obama-era CFIUS-approved transaction which
gave control over Henniges, an American maker of anti-vibration technologies with military
applications, to a Chinese government-owned aviation company and China-based investment firm
with established ties to the Chinese government. As with the Uranium One transaction, there
is cause for concern that potential conflicts of interest could have influenced CFIUS
approval of the Henniges transaction...
The direct involvement of Mr. Hunter Biden and Mr. Heinz in the acquisition of Henniges by
the Chinese government creates a potential conflict of interest. Both are directly related to
high-ranking Obama administration officials. The Department of State, then under Mr. Kerry's
leadership, is also a CFIUS member and played a direct role in the decision to approve the
Henniges transaction. The appearance of potential conflicts in this case is particularly
troubling given Mr. Biden's and Mr. Heinz's history of investing in and collaborating with
Chinese companies, including at least one posing significant national security concerns. This
history with China pre and post-dates the 2015 Henniges transaction.
Former vice president Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden partnered with infamous mobster Whitey
Bulger's nephew and former secretary of state John Kerry's stepson for his lucrative business
deal with the Bank of China, according to reporter Peter Schweizer's latest book.
Schweizer points
to the business deal with state-owned Bank of China, a $1.5 billion private equity
investment, as a possible reason why the current presidential candidate has adopted a
conciliatory attitude toward China. The lucrative deal between the Bank of China and Hunter
Biden's company was inked in 2013 just weeks after Joe Biden brought his son along on an
official trip to China.
Schweizer also lays out the interesting cast of characters who partnered with Biden for
the deal, such as the Thornton Group consulting firm, which is headed by James Bulger. The
son of Massachusetts state senator Billy Bulger, James is named after his uncle James
"Whitey" Bulger, who was
killed in prison late last year after a decades-long career in the mob that landed him on
the FBI's Most Wanted list.
Also partnered with Biden is Chris Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry. Biden and Heinz
control Rosemont Seneca Partners, the private equity firm that received billions of
investment dollars from China.
A representative for Heinz says his involvement in the deal has been "misreported." He
says that neither he nor his firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, had any role in the deal. He
says an unaffiliated second firm, Rosemont Seneca Bohai, is the firm doing business with Bank
of China, and that Heinz is not involved. The representative also says Heinz has never been
to China.
Schweizer, whose latest book Secret
Empires examines the tactics used by political elites to accumulate wealth while in
power, calls the timeline of Hunter Biden's business dealings with China as his father shaped
foreign policy from the White House "shocking," but points out that nobody knew enough to
raise any questions.
"If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son -- who
has scant experience in private equity -- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm
of the Chinese government, that's because it is," Schweizer writes. "Until the publication of
my book no one knew the deal took place. Indeed, it took me and a team of seasoned
investigators nearly two years to unearth and report the facts."
CEO of the company is Taras Burdeinyi [1] and
chairman of the board is Alan Apter. [2] A number
of non-Ukrainian directors were appointed in 2014, including Aleksander Kwaśniewski ,
former President of the Republic
of Poland , appointed in January 2014. [12] In
February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black , the Director of
the American CIA's Counterterrorist Center (CTC)
(1999–2002) in the George W. Bush administration and
Ambassador at
Large for counter-terrorism (2002–2004)
joined Burisma's Board of Directors. [13] Also Karina
Zlochevska, daughter of Mykola Zlochevskiy, is a member of the board. [2]
Other members of the board are Christina Sofocleous, Riginos Charalampous, and Marina
Pericleous. [14]
On 18 April 2014, Hunter Biden , the son of then-US vice
president Joe Biden ,
was appointed to the board of Burisma Holdings. [15] He left the
company in April 2019. [4] At
the same time, one of the board members was Devon Archer, a former senior adviser to
John Kerry 2004
presidential campaign . [16]
In October 2011, Black was chosen by Romney to serve as "Special Adviser" on all foreign
policy issues. [32
AND today we also learn the Pencil Neck Schit's major campaign contributor is a Ukrainian
arms dealer. No wonder Schit was upset with Trump for messing with his sugar daddy.
It seems that perhaps only Trump did not have some sort of financial ties to the
Ukraine.
Surely, it's a complex article. But the U. S. intervention has created, participated in
mayhem during this past decade where mayhem need not have happened. The best thing to do is
withhold money from Ukraine as POTUS did (is Congress a body that presses money into foreign
governments' hands whether they need it or not--what about Americans? It's OUR MONEY!).
Then the Ukraine government can find a new way to deal with their internal problems. Maybe
it's working with Russia. Russia is much closer to the United States. We have our own
problems such as a modern "Opium War" waged against us at the Mexican border. We need a good
barrier there. We need to start taking care of OUR OWN!
AND you also know why certain rinos like Mitt are opposing Trump....they are just as deep
into this **** as any dem. I am surprised that Hitlery wasn't getting some sort of skim on
all this action in the Ukraine.....maybe a lot more to come out.
The Ukraine looks like a real tar baby.....turns out Schit's major donor is a Ukrainian
arms dealer.....
AND then there is our old friend the CIA up to its neck. No wonder they needed a spy on
Trump and a fabricated report. Obviously they have a lot to hide.
"... The senior prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk never got an answer, and he says it's because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. The Ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch is a career diplomat (since 1986) who served under both Democratic and Republicans and was appointed to her present position in August 2016 by former President Obama. ..."
The FBI knew the
Steele dossier was nonsense before they used it to get the FISA court to issue the warrant
to begin spying on Carter Page leading to the Russia collusion hoax. John Solomon of
The Hill found a second document that the FBI knew contained false information, but they
used it to get the search warrant against Paul Manafort anyway.
Per Solomon:
The second document, known as the "black cash ledger," remarkably has escaped the same
scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as
Trump's campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.
In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a
criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017
for bank records to prove
he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.
There's just one problem: The FBI's public reliance on the ledger came months after the
feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn't be trusted and likely was a fake,
according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.
When
the NY Times reported the news about the ledger, they positioned it as a big scandal as
they do with almost everything associated with Donald Trump:
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to
Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the
disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included
election officials.
( ) The papers, known in Ukraine as the "black ledger," are a chicken-scratch of Cyrillic
covering about 400 pages taken from books once kept in a third-floor room in the former Party
of Regions headquarters on Lipskaya Street in Kiev. The room held two safes stuffed with $100
bills, said Taras V. Chornovil, a former party leader who was also a recipient of the money
at times. He said in an interview that he had once received $10,000 in a "wad of cash" for a
trip to Europe.
Nazar Kholodnytsky, Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor, told John Solomon that he had
told his State Dept contacts and FBI agents that his colleagues who found the ledger thought it
was bogus around the same time the Times published the story late August 2916.
"It was not to be considered a document of Manafort. It was not authenticated. And at that
time it should not be used in any way to bring accusations against anybody," Kholodnytsky
said, recalling what he told FBI agents.
This is the second incident of Obama's State Department ignoring Ukraine evidence.
Two months ago we
learned that senior member of Ukraine's Prosecutor General's International Legal
Cooperation Dept. told John Solomon that since last year, he's been blocked from getting visas
for himself and a team to go to the U.S. to deliver evidence of Democratic party wrongdoing
during the 2016 election to the DOJ. The senior prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk never got an
answer, and he says it's because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. The Ambassador,
Marie L. Yovanovitch is a career diplomat (since 1986) who served under both Democratic and
Republicans and was appointed to her present position in August 2016 by former President
Obama.
Solomon gives some more examples of the FBI being told the ledger was as real as a
three-dollar bill. But that's when it gets really dicey because according to three of Solomon's
sources, Mueller's team of political hitmen and the FBI were given copies of one of the
warnings.
Because they knew the ledger was false Mueller and the FBI couldn't use the ledger to
establish probable cause to investigate Manafort because it " would require agents to discuss
their assessment of the evidence -- and instead cited media reports about it." Even though the
feds assisted on one of those stories as sources
For example, agents mentioned the ledger in an affidavit
supporting a July 2017 search warrant for Manafort's house, citing it as one of the reasons
the FBI resurrected the criminal case against Manafort.
"On August 19, 2016, after public reports regarding connections between Manafort, Ukraine
and Russia -- including an alleged 'black ledger' of off-the-book payments from the Party of
Regions to Manafort -- Manafort left his post as chairman of the Trump Campaign," the July
25, 2017, FBI agent's affidavit stated.
Three months later, the FBI went further in
arguing probable cause for a search warrant for Manafort's bank records, citing a
specific article about the ledger as evidence Manafort was paid to perform U.S. lobbying work
for the Ukrainians.
"The April 12, 2017, Associated Press article
reported that DMI [Manafort's company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI
that correspond to payments in the 'black ledger,' " an FBI agent
wrote in a footnote to the affidavit.
Guess who helped the AP with their story -- the DOJ's Andrew Weissmann who later moved to
the special prosecutor's office and became Mueller's chief hit-man.
So just as they had done in the anti-Trump investigation "the FBI cited a leak that the
government had facilitated and then used it to support the black ledger evidence, even though
it had been clearly warned about the document."
Whether or not Paul Manafort deserved to be jailed is irrelevant. Part of the search
warrants against him were lies that the prosecutors knew were false. The judgments against him
should be tossed out because they contain the fruit of the poisonous tree. Our justice system
promises equal justice for all, but the FBI and Special Prosecutor cheated in the case of
Manafort.
How a Shadow Foreign Policy in Ukraine Prompted
an Impeachment Inquiry https://nyti.ms/2m0n5aY
NYT - Kenneth P. Vogel, Andrew E. Kramer
and David E. Sanger - September 28
WASHINGTON -- Petro O. Poroshenko was still the president of Ukraine earlier this year
when his team sought a lifeline. With the polls showing him in clear danger of losing his
re-election campaign, some of his associates, eager to hold on to their own jobs and
influence, took steps that could have yielded a signal of public support from a vital ally:
President Trump.
Over several weeks in March, the office of Ukraine's top prosecutor moved ahead on two
investigations of intense interest to Mr. Trump. One was focused on an oligarch -- previously
cleared of wrongdoing by the same prosecutor -- whose company employed former Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s son. The other dealt with the release by a separate Ukrainian law
enforcement agency to the media of information that hurt Mr. Trump's 2016 campaign.
The actions by the prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, did not come out of thin air. They were the
first visible results of a remarkable behind-the-scenes campaign to gather and disseminate
political dirt from a foreign country, encouraged by Mr. Trump and carried out by his
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. In the last week their engagement with Ukraine has
prompted a formal impeachment inquiry into whether the president courted foreign interference
to hurt a leading political rival.
The story of how Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani operated in Ukraine has emerged gradually in
recent months. It was laid out in further detail in the past week in a reconstructed
transcript of Mr. Trump's phone call this summer with a new Ukrainian president and in a
complaint filed by a whistle-blower inside the United States government.
Along with documents and interviews with a wide variety of people in Ukraine and the
United States, the latest revelations show that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani ran what amounted
to a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that unfolded against the backdrop of three elections
-- this year's vote in Ukraine and the 2016 and 2020 presidential races in the United
States.
Despite the findings of United States intelligence agencies and the Justice Department
that Russia was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump was driven to
seek proof that the meddling was linked to Ukraine and forces hostile to him, even fixating
on a fringe conspiracy theory suggesting that Hillary Clinton's missing emails might be found
there.
Backed by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani, who once aspired to be secretary of state, sought to
tar Mr. Biden with unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety, while he and associates
working with him in Ukraine on the president's agenda pursued their own personal business
interests.
With the political landscape scrambled by Mr. Poroshenko's defeat in April and the arrival
of a new cast of Ukrainian officials, the approach pursued by Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump
undercut official United States diplomacy.
And the signals sent by Mr. Trump -- long skeptical of the strategic value of backing
Ukraine against Russia, its menacing neighbor to the east -- complicated efforts by the new
Ukrainian government to fortify itself against Moscow.
The intensifying overlap this summer between Mr. Trump's political agenda in Ukraine and
his official foreign policy apparatus is now at the center of an impeachment inquiry that
will examine whether the president of the United States directed or encouraged his
subordinates to lean on a vulnerable ally for personal political gain.
Among the subjects covered in a subpoena sent Friday by House Democrats to Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo and demands for depositions from American diplomats was Mr. Trump's
decision to freeze a $391 million military aid package to Ukraine this summer not long before
his July 25 call with Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who defeated Mr.
Poroshenko this spring.
Democrats are also looking into the recall in the spring of the United States ambassador
to Kiev, Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer who was seen as
insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump by some of his conservative allies. On Friday evening, the
State Department's special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, abruptly resigned, not long after
receiving a summons from House Democrats to sit for a deposition in the coming week.
Mr. Trump has dismissed the impeachment investigation as another "witch hunt."
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Giuliani defended his efforts to push the Ukrainians to
investigate Mr. Biden, his son, Hunter Biden, and others. He asserted that he was not doing
it to try to influence the 2020 presidential election, though Mr. Biden is a leading
contender for the Democratic nomination to challenge Mr. Trump.
"I was doing it to dig out information that exculpates my client, which is the role of a
defense lawyer," he said.
Mixing Business and Politics
In the months before the steps taken in March on the politically explosive investigations
sought by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani had met at least twice with the man who would become a
central figure in his efforts and a target of criticism in both countries: Mr. Lutsenko, 54,
Ukraine's top prosecutor.
First at a meeting in New York and later in Warsaw, Mr. Giuliani pushed Mr. Lutsenko for
information about -- and investigations into -- a pair of cases of keen interest to his
client.
They included the Bidens' activities in Ukraine and the release during the 2016 campaign
of incriminating records about Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's campaign chairman. Mr. Giuliani
said early this year he had become increasingly convinced that the Manafort records were
doctored and disseminated by critics of Mr. Trump to sabotage his campaign, and later used to
spur the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
No evidence supports this idea and Mr. Manafort's own retroactive filings under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act corroborated the Ukrainian documents, which also matched
financial records in the United States.
Still, it was not long before Mr. Trump, sensitive to any questions about the legitimacy
of his 2016 victory, began echoing Mr. Giuliani's language about what they viewed as the
Ukrainian origins of the Russia investigation.
But Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani had also taken a growing interest in the role played by Mr.
Biden, as vice president, in the dismissal of a previous Ukrainian prosecutor who had
oversight of investigations into an oligarch who had served in a previous Ukrainian
government and whose company had employed Hunter Biden. No evidence has surfaced that the
former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the dismissal of
that prosecutor, whose ouster was being sought by other Western governments and institutions
concerned about corruption in the Ukrainian government.
In their first meeting, in January, Mr. Lutsenko later told people, Mr. Giuliani called
Mr. Trump and excitedly briefed him on the discussions. And once Mr. Lutsenko's office took
procedural steps to advance investigations involving the Manafort records and the oligarch
linked to Hunter Biden, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump and their allies aggressively promoted
stories about the developments to conservative journalists at home, further turning a foreign
government's action to the president's advantage.
"As Russia Collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges," Mr. Trump wrote on
Twitter in March, echoing the headline of one of the first such pieces by a Trump-friendly
journalist.
Mr. Giuliani had seemed to slide eagerly into his new role. After his hopes of becoming
secretary of state were dashed -- in part, former administration officials said, because of
his extensive foreign business ties -- he became a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump when the
president came under scrutiny by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Mr. Trump was publicly lobbying his own Justice Department for an investigation of Mrs.
Clinton and other Democrats. When he got no satisfaction on that score, Mr. Giuliani
volunteered to take on the role of independent investigator, empowered by nothing other than
Mr. Trump's blessing.
Mr. Giuliani rejected the suggestion that he was interfering in the execution of American
foreign policy, noting that Mr. Volker and the State Department eventually helped connect him
with a top aide to Mr. Zelensky.
"If they were concerned, I don't think they would ask me to handle a mission like this
that's sensitive," he said. "I feel perfectly comfortable with what we did in Ukraine."
Ukraine was familiar ground to Mr. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and presidential
candidate who had built a thriving consulting and security business.
Mr. Giuliani's activity on behalf of Mr. Trump allowed him to maintain, and increase, his
marketability to prospective clients around the world. Hiring him came to be seen as a way to
curry favor with the Trump administration. ...
Kurt Volker, Trump's Envoy for Ukraine,
Resigns https://nyti.ms/2mex0tH
NYT - Peter Baker -September 27
WASHINGTON -- Kurt D. Volker, the State Department's special envoy for Ukraine who got
caught in the middle of the pressure campaign by President Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W.
Giuliani, to find damaging information about Democrats, abruptly resigned his post on
Friday.
Mr. Volker, who told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday that he was stepping down,
offered no public explanation, but a person informed about his decision said he concluded
that it was impossible to be effective in his assignment given the developments of recent
days.
His departure was the first resignation since revelations about Mr. Trump's efforts to
pressure Ukraine's president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and
other Democrats. The disclosures have triggered a full-blown House impeachment inquiry, and
House leaders announced on Friday that they planned to interview Mr. Volker in a deposition
on Thursday.
Mr. Volker, a widely respected former ambassador to NATO, served in the part-time, unpaid
position of special envoy to help Ukraine resolve its armed confrontation with
Russia-sponsored separatists. He was among the government officials who found themselves in
an awkward position because of the search for dirt on Democrats, reluctant to cross the
president or Mr. Giuliani yet wary of getting drawn into politics outside their purview.
The unidentified intelligence official who filed the whistle-blower complaint that brought
the president's actions to light identified Mr. Volker as one of the officials trying to
"contain the damage" by advising Ukrainians how to navigate Mr. Giuliani's campaign.
Mr. Volker facilitated an entree for Mr. Giuliani with the newly elected government in
Ukraine, acting not at the instruction of Mr. Trump or Mr. Pompeo, but at the request of the
Ukrainians, who were worried because Mr. Giuliani was seeking information about Mr. Biden and
other Democrats and had denounced top Ukrainian officials as "enemies of the president."
...
(CNN) -- Former US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker plans to appear at his deposition
next Thursday in front of the House Foreign Affairs committee, according to a source familiar
with his plans.
The source would not say if the White House is seeking to use executive privilege to
constrict Volker in terms of what he can say or provide.
Volker's appearance before the committee was announced just hours before the news broke
Friday evening that he had resigned.
Volker didn't offer a comment when contacted Saturday by CNN.
The former US special envoy is expected to face tough questioning after finding himself in
the middle of the controversy surrounding the intelligence whistleblower who had alleged a
coverup by the White House over a call made by President Donald Trump to Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky. That whistleblower also mentioned Volker's name in his complaint when
discussing interactions between himself and Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,
concerning pushing Ukraine to look into activities of Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden. ...
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar.
As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political
consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential
elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals...
Caught between the clashing geopolitical ambitions of Russia and the West, Ukraine has for
years had to balance competing outside interests and worked hard to cultivate all sides, and
also rival groups on the same side -- no matter how incompatible their agendas -- with offers
of money, favors and prospects for career advancement."
For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be
fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any
corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he
brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right!
All we know for certain is, like Mark Twain once said, "An honest politician is somebody
who, when he is bought, stays bought." IMO, this is how we need to interpret any story that
is sourced from the Ukraine.
Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of
the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative
about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck!
Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying
to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious
Ukranian sources.
So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which
can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the
Ukraine.
Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative
they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the
intelligence services.
Personally, I hope they both embarrass themselves to the point where we can finally be rid
of both sides.
"... Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about the official full house impeachment vote. The Lawfare group and DNC far-left activists were ecstatic at the selection. Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the institution of the DOJ who worked diligently to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations. ..."
"... Speaker Pelosi has authorized the House committees to work together under the umbrella of an "official impeachment inquiry." The House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together leading this process. ..."
"... From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles. Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a corruption angle; Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an obstruction angle ..."
"... Pelosi's earlier House Rule changes now appear intentionally designed to block republicans during the article assembly process. The minority will have no voice. This is quite a design. ..."
"... Once the articles are drawn up, Schiff and Nadler will vote to approve them out of committee. Democrats control the majority so the articles will easily pass out of committee. Then the articles must come before a full house vote. The current two-week recess is the period where Pelosi has instructed her team to return to their districts and sell the reasoning and purpose for the upcoming vote. Speaker Pelosi will hold that vote. ..."
"... It is more than likely the vote will pass through the House on party lines. Once Pelosi achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached. ..."
"... While the technical reason for the recess is to celebrate the Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, it is now obvious the sequence of events has been constructed specifically toward these impeachment efforts. ..."
"... "The subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article itself." ( more ) ..."
"... Schiff, Cummings and Engel will be more urgently assembling the Corruption articles based on the purposefully constructed Trump-Ukraine whistleblower leak and subsequent document production. Hence, the depositions during the break. ..."
"... When the 116th congress returns from their break on October 15th, 2019, the Articles of Impeachment will have already been assembled: [ House Calendar Link ] ..."
"... Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they coordinate all endeavors with their media allies. The narrative assembly and usefulness by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October time-frame. This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public interest and make the most money therein. ..."
"... There will likely be more articles other than just " obstruction of justice " (Muh Russia) and " corruption of office " (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible. Emoluments may also play a role. ..."
"... The articles of impeachment will then be voted out of each committee; and after a significant dramatic pause for maximum political value, Speaker Pelosi will present days of House debate on them. ..."
"... The media will construct television sets to broadcast the house impeachment debates, and the Democrat candidates will use this time to spotlight their angelic policies and anti-corruption agenda. Big Dollar Democrats will bring in their activist groups from around the nation to celebrate the impeachment of President Trump. ..."
"... The Dems seem to be outmaneuvering the repubs and Trump at this point. If things go anywhere near what this author proposes and I think much of it will, the truth won't matter all that much just trumped up charges on the grand stage of deceit. ..."
"... The Senate trial is going to be really bad for a lot of people including some Republicans. ..."
"... Clearly her purpose is to destroy the administration. That is, basically, and ACT of War. Who the hell are we engaged in fighting. Her actions must have sponsorship. Who is it attacking the United States of America.? ..."
"... Pelosi and her Democrat minions in Congress should be terminated for belligerence and incompetence. The American virtue of real work is a foreign concept to these professional phonies. They made up this power-play drama so they can play an evil game and be irresponsible thugs at the expense of real, hardworking Americans. ..."
Pelosi's House Rule Changes are Key Part of "Articles of Impeachment", Being Drafted Over Next
Two Weeks
Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi
for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {
Go
Deep
} With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess,
those
rules
are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of
impeachment.
A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there
has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if
the
formal process
was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights
within it. Without a vote
to initiate
, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up
without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was
always the plan that was visible in Pelosi's changed House rules.
Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official
Douglas Letter
to
be the Chief Legal Counsel
for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about
the official full house impeachment vote. The
Lawfare
group
and
DNC far-left activists
were ecstatic
at the selection. Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the
institution of the DOJ who
worked
diligently
to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations.
Speaker Pelosi
has authorized
the
House committees to work together under the umbrella of an "official impeachment inquiry." The
House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together
leading this process.
From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles
and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles. Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a
corruption
angle;
Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an
obstruction
angle.
How many articles of impeachment are finally assembled is unknown, but it is possible to see the
background construct as described above. Unlike historic examples of committee impeachment
assembly, and in combination with the lack of an initiation vote, Pelosi's
earlier
House Rule changes
now appear intentionally designed to block republicans during the article
assembly process. The minority will have no voice. This is quite a design.
Once the articles are drawn up, Schiff and Nadler will vote to approve them out of
committee. Democrats control the majority so the articles will easily pass out of committee. Then
the articles must come before a full house vote. The current two-week recess is the period where
Pelosi has instructed her team to return to their districts and sell the reasoning and purpose for
the upcoming vote. Speaker Pelosi will hold that vote.
It is more than likely the vote will pass through the House on party lines. Once Pelosi
achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached.
Back to this two-week break. While the technical reason for the recess is to celebrate the
Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, it is now obvious the sequence of events has been
constructed specifically toward these impeachment efforts.
There are 31 House districts currently held by Democrats which President Trump won in 2016;
Pelosi is giving those members an opportunity to make their impeachment case to their constituents
now, but failure to support the effort is likely not optional for all except a few of the most
tenuously vulnerable. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn will
assemble enough votes for impeachment.
While those house members are explaining to their constituents, back in DC the committee work on
the articles will collate. On Friday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff,
Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel,
issued a subpoena demanding a slew of Ukraine-related documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
by Oct. 4th. The committees also scheduled depositions with five State Department officials between
Oct. 2 and Oct. 10.
Notice that
with
the rule changes
the minority will not be participating in these depositions. The republicans
will likely have no idea what is happening therein.
As Chad Pergram notes:
"The subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help
tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article
itself." (
more
)
Chairman Nadler (Judiciary) almost certainly already has his
Obstruction
articles
assembled using prior testimony, depositions and relying heavily on the Mueller report.
However, Chairmen Schiff, Cummings and Engel will be more urgently assembling the
Corruption
articles
based on the purposefully constructed Trump-Ukraine whistleblower leak and subsequent document
production. Hence, the depositions during the break.
The Democrats are going to act fast. Remember, by design Speaker Pelosi has this set up so that
Republicans don't even participate in the impeachment process. There are no republicans
participating in the assembly of the articles of impeachment. Stunningly, and as an outcome of
those
earlier rule changes
, there is no minority voice in
this process.
When the 116th congress returns from their break on October 15th, 2019, the Articles of
Impeachment will have already been assembled:
[
House
Calendar Link
]
Speaker Pelosi has to give the media some reference point to say the republicans were included
in the process, so she will likely have mid to late October destined for the committee chairs to
have
committee debate
on their pre-assembled articles. This will give the impression of
minority participation, but it will be for optics only.
Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they
coordinate all endeavors with their media allies.
The narrative assembly and usefulness
by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October
time-frame. This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public
interest and make the most money therein.
There will likely be more articles other than just "
obstruction of justice
" (Muh Russia)
and "
corruption of office
" (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible. Emoluments
may also play a role.
The articles of impeachment will then be voted out of each committee; and after a significant
dramatic pause for maximum political value, Speaker Pelosi will present days of House debate on
them.
The media will construct television sets to broadcast the house impeachment debates, and
the Democrat candidates will use this time to spotlight their angelic policies and anti-corruption
agenda. Big Dollar Democrats will bring in their activist groups from around the nation to
celebrate the impeachment of President Trump.
Then, once Pelosi is certain the maximum political benefit has been achieved, she will announce
the date for the Full House Vote on Articles of Impeachment. We can be certain the date will be
filled with maximum drama and
made-for-tv
effect complete with Speaker Pelosi bringing
back the big gavel for a grand presentation and a full house vote.
[
Chad
Pergram
] As always, it's about math. The current House breakdown is 235 Democrats, 199
Republicans, and one independent: Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich. To pass anything in the House, 218
yeas are needed.
That means Democrats can only lose 17 votes from their side and still have enough to pass an
article of impeachment. Amash has endorsed impeachment, so let's say the magic number is
actually 16. If the president is to be impeached, that means Democrats could have 15 of their
own voting for articles of impeachment while representing a district which Trump carried in
2016.
A House floor vote to impeach the President is kind of like an indictment, codified in
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. If the House votes to impeach, Article 1, Section 3 of
the Constitution sends the article(s) to the Senate for a trial presided over by Chief Justice
of the United States John Roberts. (Note Roberts' proper title. This is one of the reasons the
Chief Justice is "of the United States," and not just the "Supreme Court.") (
more
from Chad Pergram
)
The same people who will stand jaw-agape as this House Impeachment process is happening are the
same people who denied it was likely when CTH originally showed the rule changes, road-map, and
impeachment schedule
in
January
.
Now . having said all that, perhaps just perhaps .
Bill Barr is well aware of the
Machiavellian scheme
constructed and executed by Nancy Pelosi.
Perhaps, just perhaps, that is why the IG Horowitz report has been delayed . As
in, hold it back until Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Cummings fire their impeachment cannons.
Maybe
It seems awful
Trusty plan-like
for me; but it's possible.
Perhaps the ultimate counter to protect and defend the office of the presidency from this
pre-planned, Lawfare assisted, impeachment effort
is to wait until the Democrats
are going to launch their tactical impeachment nukes, and then
fire for effect
with the
declassification documents etc.!
Hey, I'm trying to provide an optimistic ending here.
The Dems seem to be outmaneuvering the repubs and Trump at this
point. If things go anywhere near what this author proposes and I
think much of it will, the truth won't matter all that much just
trumped up charges on the grand stage of deceit.
Hopefully the american people see through this utter ******** and waste of our
taxes and kick the dems out of office.
Trump wants a vote and this process Pelosi has to know this. Keep
digging idiots. The Senate trial is going to be really bad for a
lot of people including some Republicans.
My opinion as an American is that this woman is conducting
treason, right in the faces of all Americans. Clearly her purpose
is to destroy the administration. That is, basically, and ACT of War. Who the hell are we engaged in fighting. Her actions must have
sponsorship. Who is it attacking the United States of America.?
Pelosi and her Democrat minions in Congress should be terminated
for belligerence and incompetence. The American virtue of
real work is a foreign concept to these professional
phonies. They made up this power-play drama so they can play an
evil game and be irresponsible thugs at the expense of real,
hardworking Americans.
Pelosi is vile. Her minions are
the laziest and most worthless trash ever to be in
government. Remove them, take away their government benefits,
punish their incompetence.
"... The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history. ..."
"... While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally expected to support Johnson's impeachment. ..."
"... Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent." ..."
"... as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies. ..."
"... The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense." ..."
"... Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks. They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and even assassination." ..."
"... The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death." ..."
"... "I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ." ..."
"... Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished. ..."
When the GOP madly went after President Andrew Johnson, Senator Edward G. Ross ruined his own career to thwart them.
•
March 11, 2019
Senator Edmund G. Ross As Robert Mueller's pending report looms heavily over Washington, many are darkly speculating about a new
era in our history. When have there been so many investigations, such rank partisanship, such indifference to justice and the rule
of law?
Actually we have been here before.
The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's
book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history.
One story in particular stands out as the perfect antidote for our time: that of Edmund G. Ross, senator from Kansas. In 1868,
the United States came perilously close to impeaching its seventeenth president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, because the Republican
majority in Congress was at odds with him over how to handle the defeated Southern states. Ross bucked his party, followed his conscience,
and cast a vote against articles of impeachment. He was vilified at the time; decades later, he would be hailed as having saved the
republic.
While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles
of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges
moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally
expected to support Johnson's impeachment.
"Public opinion in the nation ran heavily against the President; he had intentionally broken the law and dictatorially thwarted
the will of Congress!" writes Kennedy.
After the president was effectively indicted by the House, the Senate trial proceeded and high drama riveted the nation. "It was
a trial to rank with all the great trials in history -- Charles I before the High Court of Justice, Louis XVI before the French Convention,
and Warren Hastings before the House of Lords," writes Kennedy. Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which
the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent."
The actual causes for impeachment sound somewhat obscure to today's ears, although the tenth article, which alleged that Johnson
had delivered "intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues against Congress [and] the laws of the United States," sounds
positively Trumpian. The first eight articles concerned the removal of Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war in supposed violation
of the Tenure of Office Act. The ninth article alleged that Johnson's conversation with a general had violated an Army appropriations
act. The eleventh was something of a catch-all for the rest.
The counsel for the president argued convincingly that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional. And even if there had been
a violation of the law, Stanton would have needed to submit to being dismissed and then sued for his rights in the courts -- something
that had not happened.
From Profiles in Courage :
as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President
a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House
on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies.
Telling evidence in the President's favor was arbitrarily excluded. Prejudgment on the part of most Senators
was brazenly announced. Attempted bribery and other forms of pressure were rampant. The chief interest was not in the trial or
the evidence, but in the tallying of votes necessary for conviction.
At the time, there were 54 members of the Senate, which meant 36 votes were required to secure the two thirds necessary for Johnson's
conviction. There were 12 Democratic senators, so the 42 Republicans could afford only six defections.
The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that
of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in
the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense."
The city was thronged by the "politically dissatisfied and swarmed with representatives of every state of the Union, demanding
in a practically united voice the deposition of the President," writes Kennedy. "The footsteps of anti-impeaching Republicans were
dogged from the day's beginning to its end and far into the night, with entreaties, considerations, and threats."
Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully
watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks.
They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and
even assassination."
The New York Tribune reported that Ross in particular was "mercilessly dragged this way and that by both sides, hunted
like a fox night and day and badgered by his own colleagues ."
While both sides publicly claimed Ross as their own, the senator himself kept a careful silence. His brother received a letter
offering $20,000 if he would reveal Ross' mind. The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes
before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death."
That day in the Senate, as Ross would later write, "the galleries were packed. Tickets of admission were at an enormous premium.
The House had adjourned and all of its members were in the Senate chamber. Every chair on the Senate floor was filled ."
The broad eleventh article of impeachment would command the first vote. By the time the call came to Ross, 24 "guilty" votes had
already been pronounced. As Kennedy writes, "Ten more were certain and one other practically certain. Only Ross's vote was needed
to obtain the thirty-six votes necessary to convict the President. But not a single person in the room knew how this young Kansan
would vote."
"I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life
desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer
was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ."
"Then came the answer again in a voice that could not be misunderstood -- full, final, definite, unhesitating and unmistakeable:
'Not guilty.' The deed was done, the President saved, the trial as good as over and the conviction lost. The remainder of the roll
call was unimportant; conviction had failed by the margin of a single vote and a general rumbling filled the chamber ."
When the second and third articles of impeachment were read 10 days later, Ross also pronounced the president "not guilty."
Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When
they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished.
Kennedy writes:
Who was Edmund G. Ross? Practically nobody. Not a single public law bears his name, not a single history book includes his
picture, not a single list of Senate "greats" mentions his service. His one heroic deed has been all but forgotten. Ross chose
to throw [his future in politics] away for one act of conscience.
Yet even if he fell into obscurity, history would vindicate Ross. Twenty years after the fateful vote, Congress repealed the Tenure
of Office Act, and the Supreme Court later held that "the extremes of that episode in our government" were unconstitutional.
Prior to Ross's death, the American public realized its errors too, and the same Kansas papers that had once denounced and defamed
Ross declared that his "courage" had "saved" the country "from calamity greater than war, while it consigned him to a political martyrdom,
the most cruel in our history ."
Kennedy does a wonderful job recounting this momentous episode, with the rich suspense and colorful imagery that it deserves.
Ross's words jump from the page as if they were written for our own age, and his bravery in the face of partisan political pressure
has withstood the test of time.
To end with Ross's own words:
In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial . If the President
was to step down a disgraced man and a political outcast upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations, the office
of President would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after be subordinated to the legislative
will. If Andrew Johnson were acquitted by a nonpartisan vote America would pass the danger point of partisan rule and that intolerance
which so often characterizes the sway of great majorities and makes them dangerous.
We should bear that in mind today.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner . Her work has been featured on Fox News, the
Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered , a book
about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
.
Opening the Thursday's hearing to question acting DNI Joseph Maguire, Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), put on an act to
make people watching believe he was reading directly from the transcript of the President Trump
call with the Ukraine President. But Schiff made up fictional dialog in an apparent effort make
a benign phone conversation into something it wasn't, and convince the viewing public that the
President did something wrong. Andy Biggs
To many including Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) this was unacceptable. The day after the hearing,
he
introduced a motion to censure and condemn Adam Schiff's latest lies.
"During yesterday's hearing, Chairman Schiff's opening statement included a blatantly
false retelling of President Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president. Democrats
previously initiated an impeachment inquiry, which leads to one of the most serious,
constitutional duties of Members of Congress: removal of the President of the United States.
Through this process, if the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors, Congress
may overturn the election of the President and the will of the American people. It is
therefore inexcusable to toy with the process and mislead the American public with such a
statement."
Here is the test of the resolution
Condemning and censuring Adam Schiff, Representative of California's 28th Congressional
District
Whereas, President Trump released the transcript of a call between him and the
President of Ukraine;
Whereas, President Trump subsequently released the whistleblower complaint of August 12,
2019;
Whereas, in a September 26, 2019, hearing on the whistleblower complaint, House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff purported to relay the content of the phone call to the American
people;
Whereas, instead of quoting directly from the available transcript, Chairman Schiff
manufactured a false retelling of the conversation between President Trump and President
Zelensky;
Whereas, this egregiously false and fabricated retelling had no relationship to the call
itself;
Whereas, these actions of Chairman Schiff misled the American people, bring disrepute upon
the House of Representatives, and make a mockery of the impeachment process, one of this
chamber's most solemn constitutional duties;
Whereas, for more than two years, Chairman Schiff has spread false accusations that the
Trump Campaign colluded with Russia;
Whereas on March 20, 2017, then Ranking Member Schiff read out false allegations from the
Steele dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia;
Whereas, then-Ranking Member Schiff falsely claimed in a March 2017 interview to have "more
than circumstantial evidence of collusion with Russia;
Whereas, then-Ranking Member Schiff negotiated with Russian comedians who he believed to be
Ukrainian officials to obtain materials to damage the President of the United States
politically;
Whereas, members of the Intelligence Committee have lost faith in his objectivity and
capabilities as Chairman, with every Republican member on the Committee having signed a letter
calling for his immediate resignation as Chairman;
Whereas, Chairman Schiff has gravely hindered the ability of the Intelligence Committee to
fulfill its oversight responsibilities of the Intelligence Community, an indispensable pillar
of our national security.
Resolved, That --
The House of Representatives censures and condemns Representative Adam Schiff for conduct
that misleads the American people in a way that is not befitting an elected Member of the
House of Representatives;
Representative Adam Schiff will forthwith present himself in the well of the House for
the pronouncement of censure; and
Representative Adam Schiff will be censured with the public reading of this resolution by
the Speaker.
Bravo Rep. Biggs. While I doubt Nancy Pelosi will ever allow this motion to be voted on,
it's worth the try.
I think Team Pelosi at the behest of the intelligence services freaked out when they saw
Trump going to Ukraine to get to the bottom of the allegations against him.
They have created their narrative Russiagate being conveniently replaced by Ukrainegate.
They will aggressively push their narrative through the mainstream media.
Trump, if he gets organized, will push his narrative through Fox and the conservative echo
chamber.
So far, advantage Democrats/CIA. Pretty good for a hapless bunch of politicians incapable
of putting together a message coherent enough to win an election!
As I noted earlier, the plot is Byzantine. The winner will be the side with the most
superficially plausible story. But both Trump and Biden are likely to be damaged severely
in the process and for that we can be grateful.
Concerns about Biden are all false narrative specifically injected to generate hysteria:
Biden is a dream opponent for Trump. The best he can expect.
Ukraine is a client state in which intelligence services are controlled by CIA, who has their
people on the floor. So the leaker invents the risks: "I am also concerned that these actions
pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government's efforts to deter and
counter foreign interference in U.S. elections."
The document also looks like an attempt of cover-up of Crowdstrike efforts and DNC (and the
make the the key to the document -- Brennan people smelled something) : "assist in purportedly
uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election
originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over
servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security
firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's
networks in 2016; and"
The leaker also overplay the natural efforts of WH to hide Trump lack of diplomatic skills
and bulling of Zelensky: "In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S.
officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the
phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced -- as
is customary -- by the White House Situation Room"
The key new question is "did Crowdstrike transferred images of DNC servers to Ukraine for the
analysis? "
Also document dances around the fact that Poroshenko government in tandem in Us embassy was
trying to undermine Trump
Notable quotes:
"... that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv -- specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had criticized Mr. Lutsenko's organization for its poor record on fighting corruption -- had allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies' pursuit of corruption cases, including by providing a "do not prosecute" list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their "evidence" about the 2016 U.S. election; ..."
I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute "a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order" that "does not include differences of
opinions concerning public policy matters," consistent with the definition of an "urgent
concern" in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this
information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.
I am also concerned
that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine theU.S. Government's
efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.
... ... ...
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an
initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his
personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help
the President's 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct
knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:
initiate or
continue an investigation 2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden; assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian
interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific
request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially
reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's networks in 2016; and meet or speak with
two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani
and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.
The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested
that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr.
Lutsenko made a series of public allegations -- many of which he later walked back -- about the
Biden family's activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian officials' purported involvement in the 2016
U.S. election, and the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. See Part IV for additional
context.)
The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had
transpired in the phone call. 2 They told me that there was already a "discussion
ongoing" with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the
officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal
gain.
The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of
25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the
following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):
"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to
quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have
held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States."
Aside from the above-mentioned "cases" purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the
2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other "cases" were
discussed.
Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who
listened to the call -- a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House
Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the
call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a "routine" call
with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President
during the call.
In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department
official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call. I was not the only non-White
House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State
Department and Intelligence Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call
as outlined above. IV. Circumstances leading up to the 25 July Presidential phone call
Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called
The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian officials -- most notably, Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko -- made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian officials and current
and former U.S. officials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22
July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019, and met with Mr.
Bakanov and another close Zelenskyy adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
that they possessed evidence
that Ukrainian officials -- namely, Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine Artem
Sytnyk and Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko -- had "interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election, allegedly in collaboration with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv
that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv -- specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who
had criticized Mr. Lutsenko's organization for its poor record on fighting corruption -- had
allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies' pursuit of corruption cases, including
by providing a "do not prosecute" list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to
the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their "evidence" about the 2016
U.S. election; and that former Vice President Biden had pressured former Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 to fire then Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in
order to quash a purported criminal probe into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company on
whose board the former Vice President's son, Hunter, sat. In several public comments, Mr.
Lutsenko also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters. The allegations by Mr. Lutsenko came on the eve of the first round of Ukraine's
presidential election on 31 March. By that time, Mr. Lutsenko's political patron, President
Poroshenko, was trailing Mr. Zelenskyy in the polls and appeared likely to be defeated. Mr.
Zelenskyy had made known his desire to replace Mr. Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.
On 21 April, Mr. Poroshenko lost the runoff to Mr. Zelenskyy by a landslide. See Enclosure
for additional information.
Mr. Sytnyk and Mr. Leshchenko are two of Mr. Lutsenko's main domestic rivals. Mr. Lutsenko
has no legal training and has been widely criticized in Ukraine for politicizing criminal
probes and using his tenure as Prosecutor General to protect corrupt Ukrainian officials. He
has publicly feuded with Mr. Sytnyk, who heads Ukraine's only competent anticorruption body,
and with Mr. Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist who has repeatedly criticized Mr.
Lutsenko's record. In December 2018, a Ukrainian court upheld a complaint by a Member of
Parliament, Mr. Boryslav Rozenblat, who alleged that Mr. Sytnyk and Mr. Leshchenko had
"interfered" in the 2016 U.S. election by publicizing a document detailing corrupt payments
made by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych before his ouster in 2014. Mr. Rozenblat
had originally filed the motion in late 2017 after attempting to flee Ukraine amid an
investigation into his taking of a large bribe. On 16 July 2019, Mr. Leshchenko publicly stated
that a Ukrainian court had overturned the lower court's decision.
Mr. Lutsenko later told Ukrainian news outlet The Babel on 17 April that Ambassador
Yovanovitch had never provided such a list, and that he was, in fact, the one who requested
such a list.
Mr. Lutsenko later told Bloomberg on 16 May that former Vice President Biden and his son
were not subject to any current Ukrainian investigations, and that he had no evidence against
them. Other senior Ukrainian officials also contested his original allegations; one former
senior Ukrainian prosecutor told Bloomberg on 7 May that Mr. Shokin in fact was not
investigating Burisma at the time of his removal in 2016.
See, for example, Mr. Lutsenko's comments to The Hill on 1 and 7 April and his interview
with The Babel on 17 April, in which he stated that he had spoken with Mr. Giuliani about
arranging contact with Attorney General Barr.
In May, Attorney General Barr announced that he was initiating a probe into the "origins" of
the Russia investigation. According to the above-referenced OCCRP report (22 July), two
associates of Mr. Giuliani claimed to be working with Ukrainian officials to uncover
information that would become part of this inquiry. In an interview with Fox News on 8 August,
Mr. Giuliani claimed that Mr. John Durham, whom Attorney General Barr designated to lead this
probe, was "spending a lot of time in Europe" because he was "investigating Ukraine." I do not
know the extent to which, if at all, Mr. Giuliani is directly coordinating his efforts on
Ukraine with Attorney General Barr or Mr. Durham.
A widely criticized Ukrainian prosecutor
piqued Mr. Trump's and Mr. Giuliani's interest by floating allegations to The Hill -- but then
backtracked. In the July 25 phone call, Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Mr. Lutsenko when
he told the Ukrainian president that, "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he
was shut down and that's really unfair." It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had
met on at least two occasions with Mr. Lutsenko: once in New York in late January and again in
Warsaw in mid-February. In addition, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had spoken in
late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of
Mr. Giuliani. On 25 April in an interview with Fox News , the President called Mr.
Lutsenko's claims "big" and "incredible" and stated that the Attorney General "would want to
see this."
On or about 29 April, I learned from U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation
that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department
officials for "consultations" and would most likely be removed from her position.
Around the
same time, I also learned from a U.S. official that "associates" of Mr. Giuliani were trying to
make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team. On 6 May, the State Department announced that
Ambassador Yovanovitch would be ending her assignment in Kyiv "as planned." However, several
U.S. officials told me that, in fact, her tour was curtailed because of pressure stemming from
Mr. Lutsenko's allegations. Mr. Giuliani subsequently stated in an interview with a Ukrainian
journalist published on 14 May that Ambassador Yovanovitch was "removed...because she was part
of the efforts against the President."
On 9 May, The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani planned to travel to
Ukraine to press the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations that would help the
President in his 2020 reelection bid.
In his multitude of public statements leading up to
and in the wake of the publication of this article, Mr. Giuliani confirmed that he was focused
on encouraging Ukrainian authorities to pursue investigations into alleged Ukrainian
interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged wrongdoing by the Biden family. On the
afternoon of 10 May, the President stated in an interview with Politico that he
planned to speak with Mr. Giuliani about the trip. A few hours later, Mr. Giuliani publicly
canceled his trip, claiming that Mr. Zelenskyy was "surrounded by enemies of the [U.S.]
President...and of the United States."
On 11 May, Mr. Lutsenko met for two hours with President-elect Zelenskyy, according to a
public account given several days later by Mr. Lutsenko. Mr. Lutsenko publicly stated that he
had told Mr. Zelenskyy that he wished to remain as Prosecutor General.
See, for example, the above-referenced articles in Bloomberg (16 May) and OCCRP (22
July).
I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in
the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.
See, for example, Mr. Giuliani's appearance on Fox News on 6 April and his tweets
on 23 April and 10 May. In his interview with The New York Times , Mr. Giuliani stated
that the President "basically knows what I'm doing, sure, as his lawyer." Mr. Giuliani also
stated: "We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a
right to do... There's nothing illegal about it... Somebody could say it's improper. And this
isn't foreign policy -- I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and
that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they
shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may
turn out to be helpful to my government."
Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. officials that they were deeply concerned by
what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani's circumvention of national security decision making processes
to engage with Ukrainian officials and relay messages back and forth between Kyiv and the
President.
These officials also told me:
that State Department officials, including Ambassadors
Volker and Sondland, had spoken with Mr. Giuliani in an attempt to "contain the damage" to U.S.
national security; and that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland during this time period met with
members of the new Ukrainian administration and, in addition to discussing policy matters,
sought to help Ukrainian leaders understand and respond to the differing messages they were
receiving from official U.S. channels on the one hand, and from Mr. Giuliani on the other.
During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership
was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy
would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to "play ball" on the issues that had been
publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. (Note: This was the general understanding of
the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials from late May into early July. I do
not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.) See Enclosure for
additional information.
Shortly after President Zelenskyy's inauguration, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani
met with two other Ukrainian officials: Ukraine's Special Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar
Kholodnytskyy, and a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko. Both Mr. Kholodnytskyy
and Mr. Telizhenko are allies of Mr. Lutsenko and made similar allegations in the
above-mentioned series of articles in The Hill .
On 13 June, the President told ABC 's George Stephanopoulos that he would accept damaging
information on his political rivals from a foreign government.
On 21 June, Mr. Giuliani tweeted: "New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of
Ukrainian interference in 2016 and alleged Biden bribery of Poroshenko. Time for leadership and
investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Clinton
people."
In mid-July, I learned of a sudden change of policy with respect to U.S. assistance for
Ukraine. See Enclosure for additional information.
"... ...[it] is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: "I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me," "officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S. officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S. officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me. ..."
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
It points to several interesting facts (not rumors, facts).
One is that this "rumorblower complaint" is so similar in style to certain NYT/Wapo
articles pushed by Brennan faction of "intelligence community" that it does not pass the
smell test:
== quote== ...[it] is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated
references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: "I have received
information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me,"
"officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who
told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke
with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S.
officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of
these meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S.
officials characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from
U.S. officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I
heard from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me." ==end==
Also the fact the all major neoliberal MSM bought the "rumorblower" narrative "hook, line,
and sinker" suggests some alarming similarities between "rumorblower" opus and Steele dossier
as well as for the level of control on major neoliberal MSM by intelligence agencies. So
called "Udo Ulfkotte" effect (named in memory of
==quote==
Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the
CIA controls German media, has been found dead. He was 56. Ulfkotte was an editor at
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , one of the largest newspapers in Germany, when he published
Bought Journalists , the bestselling book that cost him his job ...
==end==
)
BTW Professor Tamotsu Shibutani defined rumor as "improvised news" and this is what is the
case here. And the purpose for which it was improvised is now more or less clear -- to
initiate the impeachment process in the house via Schiff subcommittee possibly with several
Schiff staffers involved in "polishing' the complaint.
"... Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. ..."
Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August
2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.
Between May
2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that
whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises
questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a
whistleblower
complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires
potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct,
first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand
knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have
zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from
others."
The internal properties of the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form , which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24,
2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to
the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed.
The complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the
Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant
acknowledged he was "not a direct witness" to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.
A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until
recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only
first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay,
rumor, or gossip would be rejected.
"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA
based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the
bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from
another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of
wrongdoing."
"If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or
unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to
process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA," the form concluded.
Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was
formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form
prior to the August 2019 revision:
The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by
the complainant, but with
repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant : "I have
received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me,"
"officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who told
me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke with," "I
was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S. officials," "One
White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these meetings
recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials
characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S.
officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard
from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me."
The repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly
run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for "urgent concern" submissions. The change to the
"urgent concern" submission form was first highlighted on Twitter by
researcher Stephen McIntyre .
The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the
allegations.
"I was not a direct witness to most of the events" characterized in the document, the
complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep.
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and
Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal
and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the
opportunity to question his accusers.
The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and
debunked. While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return
multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the
2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that
such a request was never made .
The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the
current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.
The transcript showed
that exchange also did not happen .
Additionally,
the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official,
was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
"I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on
the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported
that
Brechbuhl was not on the phone call .
In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant's
submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to
Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late
Wednesday evening.
"The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government
intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the
intelligence community," the September 3 OLC opinion
noted . "Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication
between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received
secondhand."
"The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of "urgent
concern" that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees," the OLC
opinion
continued . "We conclude that it does not."
It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form
was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form
the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.
The democrats are in the midst (started when Obama ignored the source of the fallacious
dossier which started the FISA spying on a campaign) of a strategic blunder.
The polling on Ukrainegate show it is libelously political. Democrat respondents
largely see it serious, independents are about 40% and GOP about 30%.
This nugatory+, political ambush is not playing well to independents!
No one is asking if this nugatory, political ambush the CIA/democrats are using to run a
circus in congress is troubling about Biden.
As you say Biden is history, as are the democrats' chances in 2020 for every national
office.
"... A US connection with Kolomoisky might play well in circles keen to counter Russian complaints that the interim Kiev regime is dominated by 'fascists'." Those quotations are from Mr. Smith's article, but the following is not. Examining the documents myself, I note especially that at their end is the conclusion: ..."
"... On 12 May 2014, Burisma Holdings announced, " Hunter Biden Joins the Team of Burisma Holdings," and reported that, "Burisma Holdings, Ukraine's largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R Hunter Biden as a new director. R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings' legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations." ..."
"... Promptly, Burisma's website started presenting Burisma as if if were a Ukrainian-American if not outright American corporation . Devon Archer, shown there, was a business-partner of Hunter Biden. As the Washington Examiner reported , on 27 August 2019: ..."
"... Subsequently, both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were removed from Burisma's board and replaced by a four-person board , which mysteriously had included ever since May 2013 (which still was after Zlochevsky no longer controlled the company) Alan Apter , of Sullivan & Cromwell, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Renaissance Capital. ..."
"... However, none of that press says Kolomoysky owned the company and was its boss. The presumption there is always that Zlochevsky needed to be prosecuted -- not that Kolomoysky did. Kolomoysky is simply being written out of the picture altogether -- whited-out from it ..."
In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky doesn't want the dirt about Joe
Biden to become public, one needs to know that
Hunter Biden's boss and benefactor at
Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor until Zelensky became
Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms which could place that
former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places.
First, the falsehoods in the press have to be documented here, since this article
will go up against virtually all U.S.-and-allied reporting on these events.
And, in
order to do such a thing, the bona fides of my main sources need to be presented:
Naked Capitalism is, as
the article
about it at Wikipedia
, says, the blog of Susan Webber, pen-named "Yves Smith," who "graduated
from
Harvard College
and
Harvard
Business School
. She had 20 years of experience in the financial services industry with
Goldman
Sachs
,
McKinsey & Co.
, and
Sumitomo
Bank
.
[3]
She
has written articles for the
New York Times
,
Bloomberg
,
and the
Roosevelt Institute
.
[4]
[5]
"
"The site has had over 60 million visitors since 2007, and was cited as among CNBC's 2012 top 25
'Best Alternative Financial Blogs', calling Smith 'a harsh critic of Wall Street who believes that
fraud was at the center of the financial crisis'.
[2]
"
"
The New York Times
financial reporter
Gretchen
Morgenson
cited Naked Capitalism as one of the 'must-read financial blogs' she reads regularly.
[9]
"
Her blog is widely respected amongst both scholars and experts in the field of finance,
and is among the top go-to sites for trustworthy investigative news reporting in their highly
complex field.
So as to be able to achieve this high degree of respect, day in and day
out, for decades, she carefully selects and relies upon the expertise of a small team of
investigators, one of whom is Richard Smith, who has done
around
200 articles for her site
.
One of these was dated 21 May 2014 and headlined
"R.
Hunter Biden Should Declare Who Really Owns His New Ukrainian Employer, Burisma Holdings"
, and
it reported that the U.S. Vice President's son had become
"a
new member of the board"
and that this "Ukrainian energy company has retained the counsel of
the vice president's son and the Secretary of State's close family friend and top campaign
bundler."
Since these men were being paid by the corporation's owner, Mr. Smith researched
extensively to find out who that was, or they were. He reported "what one careful Ukrainian
journalist
dug
up
in 2012":
"Burisma changed owners last year [in 2011]: instead of Zlochevsky and Lisin, the company was
taken over by a Cypriot off-shore enterprise called Brociti Investments Ltd. Pari and
Esko-Pivnich" and a "third company was already waiting for them in the same building – the
above-mentioned Ukrnaftoburinnya," and "The Privat Group is the immediate owner. This company
was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky some time ago, but he later sold his shares to the Privat
Group," which "is a conglomerate controlled by the ferocious Ukrainian oligarch Ihor
Kolomoisky," who "is one of the oligarchs
charged
with holding down the Eastern provinces of Ukraine
," and who "is far too ebulliently Jewish
to look like a neo-Nazi.
A US connection with Kolomoisky might play well in circles keen to counter Russian complaints
that the interim Kiev regime is dominated by 'fascists'." Those quotations are from Mr. Smith's
article, but the following is not. Examining the documents myself, I note especially that at their
end is the conclusion:
"Thus, Ihor Kolomoisky managed to seize the largest reserves of natural gas in
Ukraine."
This was the conclusion of the "careful Ukrainian journalist," which was actually not one but a
team of three, who were employed at a Ukrainian non-profit, the Anticorruption Action Centre, which
specialized in tracking down the actual persons who controlled corporations and which had a
particular focus on finding "Offshore fronts for Yanukovych." Yanukovych was the democratically
elected Ukrainian President, who took office on 25 February 2010. So: this non-profit was an
anti-Yanukovych organization, writing more than two years into his Presidency, on 28 August 2012.
A certain historical background is essential here; and this, too, goes up against
American 'news'-reporting and will therefore be linked to articles that, in turn, link to ultimate
sources that are of unquestioned reliability on each of the particulars that are in question
:
There was
a coup
in Ukraine in February 2014
, which is
portrayed
in the West as being a democratic revolution
(but was actually a
coup
hidden
behind anticorruption demonstrations, and that was entirely
illegal
),
and it replaced the democratically elected President by a ruler who was selected by Victoria
Nuland, whose boss was Secretary of State John Kerry, whose boss was Barack Obama. Nuland had been
originally a protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney, and then of Kerry's immediate predecessor
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama assigned Nuland to carry out his plan for Ukraine, which
plan was to turn its government away from being friendly toward its next-door neighbor Russia to
becoming instead a satellite of the United States against Ukraine's next-door neighbor.
Consequently, fascists, and even outright racist-fascists (nazis), people who came from the groups
that had supported Hitler against Stalin during World War II, were installed into this new
government, such as
the
co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy
. (The CIA instructed that
Party, which was Ukraine's main nazi party, to change its name to "Freedom Party" -- Svoboda -- so as
to become acceptable to Americans; and Paribuy and his colleagues did it, in order to help the U.S.
Government to fool the American people about what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine.)
At least until Zelensky was elected, Ukraine's Government
remained
fascist
.
And so is Kolomoysky himself, as I had reported about him on
18
May 2014
. As I reported there,
On 12 May 2014, Burisma Holdings announced,
"
Hunter
Biden Joins the Team of Burisma Holdings,"
and reported that, "Burisma Holdings,
Ukraine's largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R
Hunter Biden as a new director. R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings' legal unit
and will provide support for the Company among international organizations."
At the time, Hunter Biden, now 49, and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary
of State John Kerry, co-owned Rosemont Seneca Partners, a $2.4 billion private equity firm.
Heinz's college roommate, Devon Archer, was managing partner in the firm. In the spring of 2014,
Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was at the
center of a U.K. money laundering probe. Over the next year, Burisma reportedly paid Biden and
Archer's companies over $3 million.
Subsequently, both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were removed from Burisma's board and
replaced by a four-person board
, which mysteriously had included ever since May 2013
(which still was
after
Zlochevsky no longer controlled the company)
Alan Apter
,
of Sullivan & Cromwell, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Renaissance Capital.
After now became
the
"Chairman of
the Board of Directors"
. Here are the other three Directors:
Aleksander Kwaśniewski
was
the President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 when it was being taken over by America,
and when Kwaśniewski was also a member of the Atlantic Council (NATO's PR arm), and of the
Bilderberg Group.
Joseph Cofer Black
was the Director of the CIA's
Counterterrorist Center (1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004),
while President George W. Bush was
lying
America into invading Iraq
, and Black subsequently became the Vice Chairman at Blackwater
Worldwide (now Academi), which the Bush Government hired to train and arm mercenaries to help
conquer Iraq. (Blackwater/Academi is owned by Erik Prince, the brother of Betsy DeVos of the Amway
fortune, who is the Trump Secretary of Education, and Prince also is a personal friend of Trump.
Obama's Government also hired Blackwater/Academi to kill independence fighters in the
Dnieper
Donets Basin
, where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas.) And the fourth Director is
Karina
Zlochevska
, whom the site identifies hardly at all, but is actually
the
daughter of Mykola Zlochevsky
. In other words: Zlochevsky probably does remain as a minority
owner of the company, and she represents his interests there.
Virtually all of the Western press simply alleges that Mykola Zlochevsky owns Burisma
Holdings and brought Biden on board and was his boss; however, I have never seen from any of those
'news'-reports any evidence or documentation that it's true -- nothing like the sources that Richard
Smith relied upon and linked to documenting that this was Kolomoysky's company. Nothing, at all.
Obama's Government constantly tried to get Zlochevsky
prosecuted for alleged corruption, but Zlochevsky had sold the company to Kolomoysky even before
Obama took over Ukraine. It's not at all clear that Hunter Biden had ever so much as just met
Zlochevsky.
Joseph Biden, as is well reported in the press, instructed the new Ukrainian Government to fire
and replace the General Prosecutor of Ukraine,
Viktor
Shokin
, who had failed to prosecute Zlochevsky, and this action by Joe is reported as
indicating that the senior Biden granted his son's employer no favor but instead the opposite --
that Joe insisted upon Hunter's boss's prosecution.
The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the
Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not
lessen -- the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.
Risen reported there that V.P. Biden's "anti-corruption message might be undermined by
the association of his son Hunter with one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies, Burisma
Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky."
However, none of that press says Kolomoysky owned the company and was its boss. The presumption
there is always that Zlochevsky needed to be prosecuted -- not that Kolomoysky did. Kolomoysky is
simply being written out of the picture altogether -- whited-out from it
Also as is typical, the
New York Times
reported, on
1
May 2019
, that Mykola Zlochevsky is the "owner of Burisma Holdings" and that "Mr. Lutsenko
initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within
10 months of taking office. The prosecutor general reversed himself and reopened an investigation
into Burisma this year. Some see his decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump
administration." For some mysterious reason, that article not only says that the replacement
Prosecutor tried and failed and now tried again to prosecute Zlochevsky but that "Some see his
decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump administration," though, actually, it was the
Obama
Administration
that had been pressing Ukraine's Government to prosecute Zlochevsky, who wasn't Hunter Biden's boss
and didn't control Burisma and was associated not with the 2014 Obama-installed Government of
Ukraine but instead with the Government that had preceded it and was the last of all Ukraine's
democratic Governments, having been democratically elected by all of Ukraine including the two
regions (Crimea and Donbass) that broke away from Ukraine when Obama in February 2014 overthrew the
Government that those two now-breakaway regions had voted for, by over 75% in that 2010 election.
And here is from Wikipedia's article on "Viktor Shokin":
Since 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general had been investigating oligarch
Mykola
Zlochevsky
, owner of the oil and natural gas company
Burisma
Holdings
, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.
[15]
In
2014, then-U.S. Vice President
Joe
Biden
's son,
Hunter
Biden
, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings.
[16]
In
2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama
administration and other governments and
non-governmental
organizations
soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing
corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to
anti-corruption efforts".
[17]
Among
other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma – to the extent
that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the
company for possible money laundering.
[15]
In March 2016, Joe Biden threatened Ukrainian President
Petro
Poroshenko
that if he did not fire Shokin, that the US would hold back its $1
billion in loan guarantees. "I looked at them and said, "I'm leaving in six hours. If the
prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money." Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And
they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
[18]
Shokin
was dismissed by Parliament later that month.
Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
However,
Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before
resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News
indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.
[23]
Hunter
Biden's ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times
editorial, though
Amos Hochstein
has
claimed to have never seen coordination between Joe Biden and his son on the matter.
[24]
[25]
And here is from Wikipedia's Article on "Burisma Holdings":
Burisma Group was founded in 2002 by Ukrainian businessman
Mykola
Zlochevsky
and
Nikolay
Lysin
[
uk
].
Now it is owned by
Mykola
Zlochevskyi
[
uk
],
who was minister of natural resources under
Viktor
Yanukovych
.
[2]
Zlochevsky
returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after the corruption investigations into his Burisma
Holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.
[3]
So, the myth that Zlochevsky was Hunter Biden's boss and benefactor at Burisma isn't
only in the 'news'-media that are controlled by U.S. Deep State that controls
the
CIA, which controls America's major 'news'-media
, but it is also in the Web's main
encyclopedia, Wikipedia, which is not only
edited
by the CIA
, but also, to some extent,
written
by the CIA
.
Furthermore, the CIA was the 'whistleblower' that made the impeachment-charge to the Democratic
Party head of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff, who
is the lead proponent of impeaching Donald Trump so that Trump can then become tried in the U.S.
Senate, which then would possess the power to replace Trump and make President the current Vice
President, Mike Pence, which Democrats, for some unexplained reason, seem to hope will happen. As
Reuters
reported on September 26th
, "The whistleblower is a CIA officer and was assigned at one point
to work at the White House, two sources familiar with the probe into his complaint said. The New
York Times first identified the whistleblower as a CIA officer, which Reuters confirmed." That
report also asserted:
The call occurred after Trump had ordered a freeze of nearly $400 million in American aid
to Ukraine, which was only later released. Before the call, Ukraine's government was told that
interaction between Zelenskiy and Trump depended on whether the Ukrainian leader would "play
ball," the whistleblower said.
The report said Trump acted to advance his personal political interests, risking national
security.
"
I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute 'a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or violation of law or executive order,'" the whistleblower complaint, dated
Aug. 12, said.
The same CIA whose lies had 'justified' America's invading Iraq in 2003, and invading
Libya in 2011, and invading Syria starting in 2012 (and extending there up till at least 2018), is
now 'justifying' congressional Democrats to replace Trump by Pence if they possibly can.
And Kolomoysky might be one of the world's biggest thieves. On
19
April 2019, Graham Stack reported for OCCRP
, a U.S.-and-allied-funded nonprofit anti-corruption
investigatory organization that
"'
Large-scale coordinated fraudulent actions of the bank
[PrivatBank]
shareholders
and management caused a loss to the state of at least $5.5 billion,'
[Valeria]
Hontareva
[former
chair of Ukranie's central bank]
said in March 2018. 'This is 33 percent of the population's
deposits [and] 40 percent of our country's monetary base.' By the time regulators took over
PrivatBank, the $5.5 billion had already been transferred to banks in Austria, Luxembourg, and
Latvia. From there, the trail goes cold. This account is based on a forensic audit by Kroll,
the U.S.-based corporate investigation and risk consulting firm. The report is based on
PrivatBank's own records and was obtained exclusively by OCCRP. Ukraine nationalized
PrivatBank in December 2016, saddling taxpayers with a $5.9 billion bailout."
Furthermore, the estimable and reliably accurate Moscow investigative journalist John Helmer
reported
on 19 February 2015
that "In March 2014, days after the ouster of Yanukovich in Kiev and the
installation of a new regime, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) started investigating Zlochevsky.
According to the evidence it presented to the Central Criminal Court between March and December of
2014, and according to Justice Blake, who assessed the evidence, there is no mention of Lisin,
Deripon, Burrard or Kolomoisky." Obama's people (there via the U.S. regime's lap-dog UK) were
targeting Zlochevsky, certainly
not
Kolomoysky, who was instead on their team.
Zelensky, prior to becoming Ukraine's President, had been the star of a popular comedy
series on Ukrainian television that was telecast by Ihor Kolomoysky's 1+1 Media group.
On
19 May 2014,
Forbes
published a shockingly honest article, by Vladimir Golstein,
"Why
Everything You've Read About Ukraine Is Wrong"
, which mentioned, about Kolomoysky, that,
His business holdings include the largest Ukrainian media group, "1+1 Media," the news
agency "Unian," as well as various internet sites, which enable him to whip public opinion into
an anti-Putin frenzy. Andrew Higgins of The New York Times published a story with the headline,
"Among Ukraine's Jews, the Bigger Worry is Putin, Not Pogroms," which praises Kolomoisky for
adorning Dnepropetrovsk with "the world's biggest Jewish community center" along with "a high
tech Holocaust museum." Higgins notes, however, that the museum "skirts the delicate issue of
how some Ukrainian nationalists collaborated with Nazis.
Kolomoysky himself had become installed by the Obama Administration's Ukrainian agents as the
Governor of the
Dnipropetrovsk
region
of Ukraine where his approximately $5 billion financial empire was based, and which in its north
extends into the
Dnieper
Donets Basin
where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas. As this last link indicates, that
Basin "is the major oil and gas producing region of Ukraine accounting for approximately 90 per
cent of Ukrainian production and
according
to EIA
may have 42 tcf of shale gas resources technically recoverable from 197 tcf of risked
shale gas in place." That article, from the investment-oriented website , sums up:
In a nutshell, Ukraine (or
rather
its puppetmasters
) has decided to let no crisis (staged or otherwise) or rather
civil war, go to waste, and while the fighting rages all around, Ukrainian troopers are helping
to install shale gas production equipment near the east Ukrainian town of Slavyansk, which was
bombed and shelled
[by the Obama-installed Government]
for the three preceding months,
according to local residents cited by
Itar
Tass
. The reason for the scramble? Under peacetime, the process was expected to
take many years, during which Europe would be under the energy dictatorship of Putin. But throw
in some civil war and few will notice let alone care that a process which was expected to take
nearly a decade if not longer while dealing with broad popular objections to fracking, may
instead be completed in months!
Ukraine's bombing of that region (for examples,
this
and
this
and
this
)
was in order to clear the land for a massive fracking operation.
However, it turned out
that not only Kolomoysky's operation with Shell in the Dnieper Donets Basin in Ukraine's far east,
but also the Ukrainian Government's own gas-exploration operation with Chevron in western Ukraine's
Olesska field, were uneconomic; or, as I headlined about them on 16 December 2014,
"Ukraine's
Two Big Gas Deals Are Now Both Dry"
. It seems that if Hunter Biden is to become a billionaire,
it won't come from Ukrainian gas. (Nor, of course will it have come from Zlochevsky, which the
news-media would have it to be.)
As was reported on 20 May 2014 by Israel Shamir at the website of Paul Craig Roberts, under the
headline
"The
Ukraine in Turmoil"
(and his article there was the first comprehensive and accurate summary of
what had recently happened to Ukraine):
These people had brought Ukraine to its present abject state. In 1991, the Ukraine was
richer than Russia, today it is three times poorer because of these people's mismanagement and
theft. Now they plan an old trick: to take loans in Ukraine's name, pocket the cash and leave
the country indebted. They sell state assets to Western companies and ask for NATO to come in
and protect the investment.
They play a hard game, brass knuckles and all. The Black Guard, a new SS-like armed force
of the neo-nazi Right Sector, prowls the land. They arrest or kill dissidents, activists,
journalists. Hundreds of American soldiers, belonging to the "private" company Academi (formerly
Blackwater) are spread out in Novorossia
[Donbass, the far-eastern region that became
independent after Obama's coup]
, the pro-Russian provinces in the East and South-East.
IMF–dictated reforms slashed pensions by half and doubled the housing rents. In the market, US
Army rations took the place of local food.
The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the
Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists,
apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry
dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.
The harshest repressions were unleashed on industrial Novorossia, as its working class
loathes the whole lot of oligarchs and ultra-nationalists. After the blazing inferno of Odessa
and a wanton shooting on the streets of Melitopol the two rebellious provinces of Donetsk and
Lugansk took up arms and declared their independence from the Kiev regime.
And then, to top it off, there is the brilliant pewreport blogger, who, on 27 July 2014,
headlined
"USAID
to Help Young Biden: The Burisma File"
, and that anonymous person succinctly laid out the use
of the U.S. Government to enable the families of some of its top officials to join America's
aristocracy, the billionaire class.
It's something that Trump himself is intimately
involved with and exploits, but if America's national and international police-agencies such as the
FBI and CIA are trying (first with Russiagate, and now with Ukrainegate) to replace him by Pence in
order to enable another friend of Obama to become installed (like Hillary was supposed to have
been) as President and Commander-in-Chief, then this struggle between the agents of America's
Democratic Party billionaires versus those of its Republican Party billionaires could end up having
consequences that no one is predicting.
It's also important to point out here that Zelensky's predecessor, Poroshenko, was not
Obama's first choice to win the 25 May 2014 Ukrainian election that followed the February 2014 coup
and installation of Yatsenyuk to run the country on an interim basis.
Yatsenyuk was
supposed to run it until that election (after which Yatsenyuk still continued long in office, and
Obama pushed as hard as possible for President Poroshenko to continue Prime Minister Yatsenyuk's
policies). Obama's first choice -- and the planned winner -- in the 25 May 2014 election, was an
intense hater of Russia,
Yulia
Tymoshenko
. Yatsenyuk had actually been her agent.
Kolomoysky
was perhaps her main financial backer.
But she lost the election to Obama's second choice,
Poroshenko. Kolomoysky was enough of a supporter of Tymoshenko so that even after he returned to
Ukraine on 16 May 2019 just prior to the latest Presidential election,
he
backed her even above Zelensky
.
But above all, he opposed Poroshenko, because
Poroshenko had been forced by the main lenders to his Government to fire Kolomoysky as governor of
Dnipropetrovsk and to nationalize his bankrupt PrivatBank due to Kolomoysky's having been looting
from Ukraine's Government too much money via his bank and via his minority ownership of the
Government's gas company.
Obama had wanted that money to go toward the war against Donbass, not into Kolomoysky's pockets.
(However, America's Democratic-Party propaganda 'non-profit' Public Radio International gave
a positive spin to Obama-team-member Kolomoysky even at the time of his firing by Poroshenko on 28
March 2015,
saying
of him
, "He offered $10,000 bounties for captured pro-Russian insurgents. 'People understand
that this person came here to ensure stability,' said Stanislav Zholudev, a local political
analyst." The euphemism "captured pro-Russian insurgents" was actually referring to their corpses --
Kolomoysky was paying only for their corpses.
Maybe for Obama-ites that's "stability."
Kolomoysky was already paying the nazi
Azov
Battalion
more than that per pro-Russian corpse, and now the Trump Administration wants
Kolomoysky to be prosecuted for financial crimes instead of Zlochevsky to be prosecuted, and so
Zelensky is being pushed one way by Democrats, and the opposite way by Republicans.)
Kolomoysky has many enemies.
The main holders of Ukraine's debt are unknown,
but besides Russia which had lent to the pre-coup Government (and were thus trying to get their
senior money that's owing from Ukraine to be paid to Russia before the newer creditors get theirs),
they were said to be
the IMF, America's Franklin Templeton Fund
,
and
Blackstone
Group
, the
World
Bank
, and a group of mainly American billionaires "and private Eurobond holders" who are
represented by
the
law firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges
. The U.S. Government and EU countries were also
said
to be
indirectly such holders via their ownership shares in the IMF and World Bank, but also
perhaps more directly. (If Trump were a decent President, he'd be publicly pressing for the exact
numbers on all of this.) Kolomoysky's siphonings from Ukraine's Government were at the expense of
all of them. The pressures upon Poroshenko to halt it were mounting. And, so, Kolomoysky was fired;
and, now, to the extent that Zelensky has to satisfy Kolomoysky, Zelensky (who publicly said of
Kolomoysky
"He
is my business partner"
) needs to resist some of the demands of the U.S. regime and of many
other billionaires. Without their continued support, Ukraine's Government will collapse in the
short term instead of only (which is inevitable) in the long term. It's no longer just a question
of the Ukrainian regime's war against Donbass. The change that Obama wrought is permanent, and
Trump dithers back and forth about how to deal with it. He apparently has no strategy on that.
Zelensky might fear that if he complies with Trump's request, then his own major
benefactor, Kolomoysky, could end up in prison somewhere; and Trump might fear that if he presses
Zelensky on that (as he did not do but Democrats say he did), then the entire Deep State -- not only
Democratic Party billionaires, but also now Republican ones -- will become Trump's enemies, and his
2020 re-election chances will therefore go to zero.
Consequently: Trump will
probably abandon the matter, and the till-now-unsupported and maybe unsupportable mere assumption,
that Hunter Biden's Ukrainian benefactor was Zlochevsky instead of Kolomoysky, will continue to be
asserted virtually everywhere throughout the U.S. empire, for as long a time as the matter
continues to remain in the 'news'. Of course, if that turns out to be the case, then Joe Biden will
continue to be portrayed in this matter as having been a crusader against corruption in Ukraine,
instead of as having been the aspiring founder of yet another billionaire American dynasty.
Basically, the new Russiagate charges to replace Trump by Pence, Ukrainegate (as those charges
were
presented
by the CIA 'whistleblower' on August 12th
and published on September 26th), represent all of
the Democratic Party's billionaires, and many of the Republican Party's ones, as well. It's the
pinnacle of the Obama-versus-Trump feud, because it represents the Democratic Party's position on
what was Obama's top international achievement -- his conquest (via a coup) against Ukraine. Trump
refuses to condemn Obama's coup against Ukraine, but if he cared about the truth, he would, and the
worst that could happen to him then would be that, for once in his life, he'd be fighting for
truth, and not just for himself. Apparently, that's too big a leap for him to take.
What's especially pathetic in all of this is that whenever the U.S. Government
overthrows and destroys a country, it's trumpeted as reflecting America's standing-up for
rule-of-law and opposition to corruption, and for support of democracy and protection of human
rights; but whenever Russia or a nation that's friendly toward Russia resists control by the U.S.
and its allies, it's portrayed as being a dictatorship and an opponent of democracy and of human
rights. So, go figure.
Notwithstanding the principle of Occam's razor, if it
requires lengthy explanations and rabbit hole conspiracy
theory's, a defense attorney would do a disservice to
his client. The mind of a liberal is stuck between fantasy
and delusion and the jury won't take kindly to
it, Guaranteed.
Occam's razor
(also
Ockham's razor
or
Ocham's
razor
:
Latin
: novacula
Occami; or
law of parsimony
:
Latin
: lex
parsimoniae) is the problem-solving
principle
that
states "Entities should not be multiplied without
necessity."
[1]
[2]
The
idea is attributed to English
Franciscan
friar
William
of Ockham
(c. 1287–1347), a
scholastic
philosopher
and
theologian
.
It is sometimes paraphrased by a statement like "The
simplest solution is most likely the right one." but is
the same as the Razor only if results match. Occam's
razor says that when presented with competing
hypotheses
that
make the same predictions,
one should select the
solution with the fewest assumptions,
[3]
and
it is not meant to be a way of choosing between
hypotheses that make different predictions.
which "is a conglomerate controlled by the ferocious
Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky,"
I toadaso.
Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky
That part however is debatable as Ihor holds at least 3
citizenship's and at the time of the Nuland / McCain / Hillary
putsch, he lived in Switzerland most of the time, Israel when he
was in deep dodo and needed to go on the lam.
He
is the real story here, the Bidens are secondary like
the Ambassador in Libya who was running a BI PARTISAN approved gun
running scheme to terrorists in Syria.
The real story is about US manufactured regime change, the
skanks they lie down with to accomplish their goals and that no
travesty inflicted on the local population for Zogged America to
achieve it's goals is too much.
Now will ZH do the right thing and focus on the pea instead of
the ever moving walnut shells?
I'm neutral - neither like or dislike Trump - but feel like I'm in
the twilight zone because
1. What the left are accusing trump
of, is EXACTLY what Joe Biden admitted to doing to the same
country!! Why is Biden's corrupt actions never even mentioned in
this media beatup?
2. Nancy "another Scotch please" Pelosi said that Trump was
using American taxpayer money to shake down a foreign leader
instead of just handing them the money. I'd like ask who her
allegiance is to if she thinks that Ukraine has a god given right
to American taxpayer money. Is this how Democrats really think?
I don't like the Republicans, but the Democrats don't even
pretend anymore to actually care for this country or their fellow
Americans. As far as I can tell, they are no different from an
enemy foreign state.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday she believes President Trump is "goading" House
Democrats to impeach him because he thinks it could help him politically.
"Don't tell anybody I told you this: Trump is goading us to impeach him," Pelosi said
during an event sponsored by Cornell University in New York City. "That's what he's doing.
Every single day, he's just like, taunting and taunting and taunting."
Pelosi argued Trump is daring them to impeach him because he believes it would help him
"solidify his base" ahead of his 2020 re-election. Pelosi said that puts Democrats in a
dilemma.
"... "The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," reads the prior version of the form, which contains the bolded heading: "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED," and "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing." ..."
"... 15/ bottom line: it appears almost certain that, subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced a brand new Urgent Disclosure Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report allegations with no personal knowledge https://t.co/l8foAAj2sC pic.twitter.com/WXcNdJn84u ..."
"... "The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant ." ..."
"... Meanwhile, the complaint contains several false claims noted by Davis: ..."
"... While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made . ..."
"... The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen . ..."
"... "I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call . - The Federalist ..."
"... Let's understand what we are up against. The illusion of control has been sold to the public and a significant portion of the population has swallowed the hype. Back up and look at this from a distance for a moment. The only nation that the United States has defeated by itself in the last 100 years is Japan. And we did that with nukes. ..."
"... The illusion of control is fading fast. The best thing we can do as a people is come to the realization that most of the government promises will not be kept. We must prepare ourselves and our local communities for the chaos that is unfolding. If nothing else, start a victory garden program in your home town. ..."
"... The CIA has had a domestic agenda for decades. They wrapped up the Clinton crime syndicate in Mena Arkansas when it became the center for drug smuggling in Latin America. Not long after CIA captured the Clintons, the first assault weapon's ban was signed into law. ..."
"... The controlled political class and the controlled media have been on board with this agenda for years. We will get a ban either through an executive order or a bill passed by the politcal class. ..."
"... Don't forget the Bushes and 'Poppy' Bush being the CIA head. The Bushes and the Clintons were besties... Bush sent no one less than Bob Barr to Mena to straighten some **** out. ..."
"... Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the HPSCI does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts for any of the targets, or have any republican members present therein. ..."
"... The intellegence community of the former administration runs this country. They are the deep state ..."
In the months leading up to a CIA whistleblower's hearsay complaint about President Trump's July 25
phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the US intelligence community
quietly
eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers must provide
first-hand knowledge
of
alleged wrongdoings
, according to
The
Federalist
's Sean Davis.
Then, on September 24 -
days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and
released to the public
- a new version of the whistleblower complaint form revised in
August, 2019 - the Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form - was uploaded and used by the CIA employee
to file the complaint.
And while the public just learned about this a week ago, the whistleblower letter to House and
Senate Intelligence Committee chairs Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Richard Burr (R-NC)
was
dated August 12
, the same month the form was updated
.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public,
eliminates the
first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if
they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence
and
only "heard about
[wrongdoing] from others
."
The internal properties of
the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form
, which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower
Protection Act (ICWPA), show that
the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at
4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the
public.
The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed. -
The
Federalist
A previous version of the document provided by the ICIG and DNI until recently declared that
whistleblower complaints
must only contain first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing
-
and made clear that
hearsay, gossip or rumor would be rejected
.
"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based
on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," reads the prior version of the form, which
contains the
bolded heading: "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED,"
and "This includes
information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she
witnessed some type of wrongdoing."
"
If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand
or unsubstantiated assertions,
[the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able
to process the complaint
or information for submission as an ICWPA," the form
concludes.
15/ bottom line: it appears almost certain that,
subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced a brand new Urgent Disclosure
Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report allegations with no personal
knowledge https://t.co/l8foAAj2sC
pic.twitter.com/WXcNdJn84u
"I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have
informed me," "officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House
officials who told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I
spoke with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S.
officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these
meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials
characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S. officials,"
"I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard from multiple
U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me." -
The
Federalist
And if any doubt remains, the CIA employee told Schiff Burr (R-NC) in their August 12 letter; "
I
was not a direct witness to most of the events
," which is repeated in the actual complaint
as: "
I
was not a witness to most of the events described...
"
Meanwhile, the complaint contains several false claims
noted by Davis:
While
the complaint alleged that Trump demanded
that Ukraine physically
return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in
the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that
such
a request was never made
.
The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current
prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.
The transcript showed
that
exchange also did not happen
.
Additionally,
the
complaint falsely alleged
that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a
party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
"I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on
the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported
that
Brechbuhl
was not on the phone call
. -
The
Federalist
Following the complaint, the Justice Department (DOJ) and Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) deemed
the submission to be
statutorily deficient
and therefore free from reporting
requirements to Congress. Under mounting pressure, however, the White House declassified and
released the complaint to
Congress
on Wednesday evening, hours after they
released transcript of the underlying Trump-Zelensky phone call in question
which refuted
grandiose claims made in mainstream publications
such as Trump pressuring Zelensky "
about
eight times
."
Let's understand what we are up against. The illusion of
control has been sold to the public and a significant portion of
the population has swallowed the hype. Back up and look at this
from a distance for a moment. The only nation that the United
States has defeated by itself in the last 100 years is Japan. And
we did that with nukes. Nukes detonated on American soil will
be the end of the American government. The grid would go down and
absolute chaos would unfold.
In both WW I and WW II our allies
did most of the fighting. Korea was a stalemate. Vietnam was a
loss. The Middle Eastern wars are a shambles. We have been
fighting in Afghanistan for 18 years and still it cannot be
conquered. Chicago cannot be controlled. Bloated pension plans
are collapsing the big government strong holds in our mega
cities. The preliminary efforts to disarm the public through
registration have been dismal failures. The financial system is
unsustainable. The media has been discredited. The government
is perceived by millions to be illegitimate. The urban and rural
populations have been pitted against each other and the country is
devolving into irreconcilable factions.
The illusion of control is fading fast. The best thing we can
do as a people is come to the realization that most of the
government promises will not be kept. We must prepare ourselves
and our local communities for the chaos that is unfolding. If
nothing else, start a victory garden program in your home town.
Endless investigations. The biggest scandal since Watergate.
Coverups. An inability to govern. A possible constitutional crisis.
That is what Humpty Drumpfy said about Hillary in the 2016 campaign
election. Apparently Humpty looked in the mirror and saw Hillary:
Karma is a bitch Donniboi.
November 2 in Miami, FL
"If Hillary Clinton were to be elected, it would create an
unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis. Haven't we
just been through a lot with the Clintons, right?"
November 2 in Orlando, FL
"Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years,
probably concluding in a criminal trial."
November 4 in Atkinson, NH
"She'll be under investigation for years. She'll be with trials.
Our country, we have to get back to work."
November 4 in Wilmington, OH
"Hillary has engaged in a criminal massive enterprise and
cover-ups like probably nobody ever seen before."
and it is more to their benefit to be the keepers of that
information and accrue the power from that knowledge than to
reveal it and bring people to justice.
You do not get it. There is NO WAY HRC was ever going to win.
First, the bible belt. They wouldn't vote for a lesbian husband
beater who took an intern, married, that made 9k a year and
promoted her to first consort at 6 figures. And she dissed them.
Then she didn't even BOTHER to visit, NOT EVEN VISIT michigan who
might have turned on denial regarding her lesbian affair with a
married woman/ mother but couldn't get over being completely
DISSED by those who pushed nafta and took their jobs..THIRD...she
left men to be murdered, she and obama et al, biden, TURNED HELP
TO THEM AROUND and left t hem after 600 emails from the
ambassador, a democrat btw, begging for help...left them to be
murdered... AFTER the seals recovered the weapons she sold to al
queda. Where are the weapons btw? Then she tried to BLAME an
innocent videographer, american for it all and then put gag orders
like some two bit criminal on those who survived ..and w hy?
because as all american now knows but for YOU she is the criminal.
There is NO WAY she was ever going to win and you all better
figure that out because it trickles down. Bill and his intern. She
and hers. SICKENING.
Include in that her donors, that buck guy
who murders black gay men, and others. Add to it the head of
Bangladesh announcing to the world that HRC was trying to shake
her down for money. Add to that the ukraine and russian oil. Add
to the emails and server destruction.
The CIA just told the world how they gather INTEL: hearsay
evidence! Now all the conspiracy theories about CIA crimes are laid
out for the world. It was NOT Trump's fault. He was following the
rules. Instead, the Democrat Congress was filled with TDS and had to
set up POTUS for a take out that it couldn't accomplish with the
Lapdog Socialist Media. Pick your conspiracy. JFK assassination:
CIA TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE! Murder One: BOOK AGENCY, DANNO!
Government needs you to pay
taxes
,
19 minutes ago
link
Not only is the CIA corrupt and partisan, it also is **** at its
intended agenda. Which calls their usefulness (per legit tasks)
into serious question. Honestly, I would disband the intelligence
agencies, reduce intel headcount by 90%, and hire fresh people.
Anyone above a middle rank in the new agency gets time-limited in
their role.
The Senate should subpoena John Brennan, and ask him if he willfully
undermined or orchestrated actions against President-elect Trump.
Then subpoena John Clapper and ask him that too. If they lie,
they're screwed. If they tell the truth they're fvcked.
Hillary used the deep state once again to not only get Biden rapped
up in this Ukraine business but also make the president look like he
did something improper which he didn't and has the legal authority to
investigate Biden's cronyism. This is all for a reason, she is
hitting the media circus next week to announce she is back in the
running for the White House.
The CIA has had a domestic agenda for decades. They wrapped up
the Clinton crime syndicate in Mena Arkansas when it became the
center for drug smuggling in Latin America. Not long after CIA
captured the Clintons, the first assault weapon's ban was signed into
law. Now that the coup has gone public again and captured the
public discourse, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy
(D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have launched another
assault weapons ban that will ban all semi automatic fire arms in the
United States.
The communists always disarm the public before
they collapse the system. They must have a monopoly of force so
that they can be sure their cohorts continue to eat while the rest of
the population starves.
The controlled political class and the controlled media have been
on board with this agenda for years. We will get a ban either
through an executive order or a bill passed by the politcal class.
I hope you got your iconic Colt M-4 before they disappeared.
Don't forget the Bushes and 'Poppy' Bush being the CIA head. The
Bushes and the Clintons were besties... Bush sent no one less than
Bob Barr to Mena to straighten some **** out.
Ah, so the IC has a process for scrapping those requirements outside
of a democratic way of doing things?
Or does a democratic process
exist for these occasions?
So who voted for, who against?
Who is clearly the opponent here and who understands the
importance of the constitution that they took an oath on.....
HPSCI Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct
depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the
HPSCI does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts
for any of the targets, or have any republican members present
therein.
The purpose for the rule changes was to position a new,
and never before seen, impeachment process.
The House can investigate impeachment without any involvement
whatsoever by the minority.
That's why no vote.
That's why the new phrase: "official impeachment inquiry".
IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi selected former
insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel
for the House. That becomes important when we get to the actual
impeachment part.
Pelosi has been working in the background carrying out this
agenda for 10 months.... Republicans have been brutally naive to
what has been going on.
When Republicans return from their 2 week vacation, maybe they'll
realize what's been going on while they were not watching.
Everything was/is designed to keep events hidden from
republicans in congress.
And don't think Chuck Schumer has not been quietly working behind
the scenes in the senate.
So knowing now that Pelosi (and entire team) have had this
impeachment plan in place since December 2018 (per rules).
What is the likelihood of a Senate plan since a same/similar
timeframe?
Now, all that said, there is an optimistic possibility also
present. Assume Trump and/or Barr are aware of this Pelosi
impeachment scheme. Perhaps that explains their delays in
leveraging the declassification material.
ie. Saving biggest weapon(s) for defense of office.
If trump is impeached and they try to remove him from office over
this ******** while the democrats pillage foreign nations using
taxpayer dollars than trump should tell his supporters to head to
Washington...loaded. This is a coup and nothing more
The media is completely complacent in this...probably under blackmail
or bribery. The intellegence community of the former administration runs this
country. They are the deep state
Anyone who doesn't think this is a well planned COUP on the president
of the US should read the new rule changes that Nancy Pelosi has put
into effect in the house!!!!!
This is unfucking real! Why doesn't the public know about this
********???
HPSCI Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct
depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the HPSCI
does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts for any
of the targets, or have any republican members present therein.
The purpose for the rule changes was to position a new, and never
before seen, impeachment process.
The House can investigate impeachment without any involvement
whatsoever by the minority.
That's why no vote.
That's why the new phrase: "official impeachment inquiry".
IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi selected former
insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for
the House. That becomes important when we get to the actual
impeachment part.
So knowing now that Pelosi (and entire team) have had this
impeachment plan in place since December 2018 (per rules).
What is the likelihood of a Senate plan since a same/similar
timeframe?
Now, all that said, there is an optimistic possibility also
present. Assume Trump and/or Barr are aware of this Pelosi
impeachment scheme. Perhaps that explains their delays in leveraging
the declassification material.
ie. Saving biggest weapon(s) for defense of office.
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower
complaint, I immediately looked at the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033.
Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can
say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and
should have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a
person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One
cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority
over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters
are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail
or that there is no toilet tissue in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an
activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject of an "intelligence
activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or
his phone calls is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should
have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower
complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in
Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing
less that NatSec coup attempt.
"... Now, when it appears that Trump has not been sufficiently humbled by Russiagate, and actually has the gall to pursue the source of the debunked allegations, the CIA is apparently NOT happy. ..."
"... And when the CIA says to Pelosi, "Jump!", Pelosi says, "How high?" ..."
"... What will be interesting is to see how much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators, who, in an impeachment vote, could be caught between the wishes of their base, and the wishes of the intelligence community. Will this be the first color revolution on US soil? ..."
"... The president of Ukraine and Ukraine overall are just playing cards in the US politics in the case of the impeachment process. The Democratic Party started playing this card after its hopes to impeach Donald Trump using the Russiagate scandal failed after the Mueller investigation did not prove Trump collusion with the Russian government and a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent was also debunked. The whistleblower report about the call between Volydmyr Zelensky and Trump was used to initiate impeachment proceedings even before the transcript of this call was made public. ..."
"... The declassified transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates that Ukraine is still a US client state, like it became after the Maidan under Obama presidency when Biden was in charge or relations with Ukraine. Trump suggests Zelensky what to do, in particular, concerning the investigation of his opponent in the US presidential elections. Zelensky tries to please and flatter Trump numerous times and accepts Trump's suggestion to reopen the investigation involving Biden's son company in Ukraine. Like Bill Clinton, Trump can be impeached in the House of Representatives but unlikely in the Senate. ..."
It appears that the whole impeachment has been orchestrated by the CIA. The whistleblower is
CIA.
Meanwhile, Pelosi served many years on the House Intelligence Committee, an appointment
that certainly could not have hurt her ascent to Speaker. Indeed, I don't recall Pelosi ever
questioning anything the CIA did not even torture. Her only complaint ever was that they
didn't keep her sufficiently informed about torture.
Now, when it appears that Trump has not been sufficiently humbled by Russiagate, and
actually has the gall to pursue the source of the debunked allegations, the CIA is apparently
NOT happy.
And when the CIA says to Pelosi, "Jump!", Pelosi says, "How high?"
What will be interesting is to see how much influence the CIA has over Republican
Senators, who, in an impeachment vote, could be caught between the wishes of their base, and
the wishes of the intelligence community. Will this be the first color revolution on US
soil?
It looks like we will get to meet the whistleblower.
from The Hill:
The House Intelligence Committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers and Maguire to
allow the whistleblower to speak before the committee. [DNI] Maguire assured lawmakers
during the lengthy hearing that the individual would be able to testify "fully and
freely."
"I was pleased that the director committed to having the whistleblower come in as soon as
the clearance issues are resolved for the whistleblower's counsel," Schiff told reporters
after the hearing. . .
here
If the "whistleblower" was simply reporting hearsay, how can he/she be described as a
whistleblower?
I can't believe how, after Russiagate, this story has managed to gain any traction
whatsoever. The college educated public in America is probably the least sophisticated on the
planet.
Another interesting aspect is this. Whistle blower gives evidence to Trump appointed intel
honcho, who forwards evidence to higher Trump appointed intel honcho, who then takes evidence
to Trump appointed presidential legal advisor for clearance.
Higher Trump intel honcho then waits until phone call transcript is made public before
sending whistle blower evidence to senate intel circus.
So either massive conspiracy by those around Trump to take him down with very week ammo,
or option b - those involved in RussiaGate being set up for massive fall.
Looks like the current drama from the land of drama queens has been set up with an open
ending.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/463274-five-takeaways-from-trump-whistleblower-hearing
"Democrats seized on the declassified whistleblower complaint released right before the
hearing
as further evidence of what they see as an impeachable offense by Trump.
They highlighted how the complaint alleges that White House officials tried to restrict
access
to records of Trump's call with Zelensky, including an allegation that officials removed
the
transcript from the computer system where it would typically be stored to conceal its
existence."
So they gotta prove Trump trump possibly removed a possibly non existent possibly
'truthful'
record of the call.
I guess they will drag this out as long as Russiagate.
I think the point the centrist Dems are going to stumble over is the assertion that Trump
"tried to manipulate
the president of a foreign country" to investigate a possible political opponent "in order to
fabricate material
to be used against him in the 2020 election." If Zelensky says the call was "normal," then
the alleged manipula-
tion was normal diplomatic usage. More interesting is the problem of Trump's motivation. This
is reading minds.
Many criminal charges require proving mens rea, the state of mind or intention of the
accused. If you can't prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to do wrong, then the verdict must be
"not guilty." The summary
of the call does not show Trump saying anything like that. He was requesting an investigation
because we have heard
things that suggest Hunter Biden did wrong. Former Prosecutor Shokin suspended the
investigation into Burisma, but
that doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing there. It may just mean he knew Burisma was
protected.
The president of Ukraine and Ukraine overall are just playing cards in the US politics in
the case of the impeachment process. The Democratic Party started playing this card after its
hopes to impeach Donald Trump using the Russiagate scandal failed after the Mueller
investigation did not prove Trump collusion with the Russian government and a conspiracy
theory that Trump is a Russian agent was also debunked. The whistleblower report about the
call between Volydmyr Zelensky and Trump was used to initiate impeachment proceedings even
before the transcript of this call was made public.
The declassified transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates
that Ukraine is still a US client state, like it became after the Maidan under Obama
presidency when Biden was in charge or relations with Ukraine. Trump suggests Zelensky what
to do, in particular, concerning the investigation of his opponent in the US presidential
elections. Zelensky tries to please and flatter Trump numerous times and accepts Trump's
suggestion to reopen the investigation involving Biden's son company in Ukraine. Like Bill
Clinton, Trump can be impeached in the House of Representatives but unlikely in the
Senate.
@151 joe... the usa is in perpetual war.. finally it looks it brought the permanent state of
war onto itself... when they aren't murdering innocents with their NRA mindset in the next
god forsaken usa place, they are murdering others in faraway countries.. now, it looks like
the usa is ready to murder there own in a bigger way... it couldn't happen to a more depraved
group of people based on their actions on the world stage the past 70 odd years beginning in
korea... i hope the wheels come right off the usa and that they reep what they have sown on
the world stage..
"... As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals... ..."
"... For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right! ..."
"... Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck! ..."
"... Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious Ukrainian sources. ..."
"... So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the Ukraine. ..."
"... Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the intelligence services. ..."
"... Imagine a US president [running the world hegemon with zero moral power] attempting to see just how crooked the thugs in Ukraine are since the DNC cabal wants to war on Russia in Donbass. ..."
"... The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worms starting from Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o ). ..."
"... And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate (including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition of war crimes. ..."
"... Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine looks like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members of Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands. ..."
"... The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over. ..."
"... The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when Biden was VP. ..."
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar.
As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political
consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential
elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals...
Caught between the clashing geopolitical ambitions of Russia and the West, Ukraine has for
years had to balance competing outside interests and worked hard to cultivate all sides, and
also rival groups on the same side -- no matter how incompatible their agendas -- with offers
of money, favors and prospects for career advancement."
For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be
fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any
corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he
brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right!
All we know for certain is, like Mark Twain once said, "An honest politician is somebody
who, when he is bought, stays bought." IMO, this is how we need to interpret any story that
is sourced from the Ukraine.
Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of
the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative
about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck!
Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying
to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious
Ukrainian sources.
So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which
can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the
Ukraine.
Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative
they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the
intelligence services.
Personally, I hope they both embarrass themselves to the point where we can finally be rid
of both sides.
Impeachment is a tactic of the [DNC cabal] coup attempt. Russia gate did not work.
The "intelligence" community [the swamp] is at odds with Trump, the phony CIA
"whistleblower" is a deep swamp tool.
Imagine a US president [running the world hegemon with zero moral power] attempting to see
just how crooked the thugs in Ukraine are since the DNC cabal wants to war on Russia in
Donbass.
Suppose someone said "supporting Zelenskiy's/Thieu's corrupt regime would drag the US
through the mud"+. There would not be a Vietnam wall on the Mall.
+Like Marshall observed when he advised the US Chiang should not be imposed on China any
longer.
"Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar. "
Of course, one would only welcome that Pelosi just dived head on into Ukrainian mud
(Michelle Obama might not happy, though).
Trump is serious opponent in mud wrestling for Pelosi (5'5, 131 pound) and not only
because he is 6'2, 236 pounds.
The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worms starting
from Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
).
And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate
(including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition
of war crimes.
If Trump wants, not a single member of Obama administration can emerge unscathed from
this. He can tarnish Obama legacy forever in a way Iraq war and Abu Ghraib tarnished forever
Bush II administration.
He also can sink Brennan by asking Zelensky to open archives with protocols of talks with
Ukrainian officials during Brennan's visits to Kiev.
Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine looks like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members
of Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands.
Seems that the opposition press wants us mob outrage to make Trump foreign policy for
him.
The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the
regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over.
A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and FBI.
It takes a lot more than some good at grammar NYTimes writer to substantiate claims that
allegations against the former VP and his son's cushy Ukraine oligarch job are
unsubstantiated. That is work for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when
Biden was VP.
Out of context is no reason to make a conclusion
Why I support impeachment. The evidence will be put out and the solicitors will argue on
complete evidentiary lines. It is getting to be anything Trump wants to do they find some phony reason to be
outraged.
I did a 20 minute telephone poll today. They called me! You can count on one respondent
"strongly opposed" to impeachment for trying to get to the bottom of Biden family
corruption.
"A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and FBI."
No. Nothing new here. This is just Russiagate II. Same actors, same methods. But it is unclear to me why they even bothered? Trump folded long ago, In April 2017 to be
exact. And before impeachment, his chances in 2020 were far from certain. Especially against
Warren.
Also Biden should not even be discussed anymore. At this point he is history.
Warren now is the official frontrunner. Which is probably the only good thing emerging out
of this CIA-inspired mess.
"... which proves beyond doubt that this is a purely political document, intended for public consumption as a tool for political ends, not for the intelligence committees. Typical Clinton-Cabal manipulation. ..."
"... Apparently a desperate action to obfuscate something in Barr's investigation, as I interpret it. Obviously considerable effort (and considerable discussion) has been expended in trying to make it as watertight as possible - but by people incapable of seeing outside their narrow interests. ..."
"... the Judicial Watch person suspects it's the work of D-Congressman Schiff as it bears the hallmarks of his craftmanship ..."
"... It seems like the mole-like permanent puppet-string-puller* network installed - or more likely expanded and deepened, and made more permanently pro-Dem - by Obomber throughout the US government is much like an infestation of mould, whose spores are impervious to destruction and constantly reinfest the infestation. ..."
The "whistleblower's" letter is so pathetic, it is quite funny. It is nothing but drivel,
very Russiagate-like, nothing but dredging mud.
What is striking about the letter is the inordinate lengths the author goes to to justify
that the letter is non-classified and should not be classified, including verbose and
detailed notes with arguments as to why it should not be classified, taking up a full half of
the document. This is underlined in particular by his statement in the letter:
If a classification marking is applied retrospectively, I believe it is incumbent upon the
classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which specific
information it pertains.
which proves beyond doubt that this is a purely political document, intended
for public consumption as a tool for political ends, not for the intelligence committees.
Typical Clinton-Cabal manipulation.
Apparently a desperate action to obfuscate something in Barr's investigation, as I
interpret it. Obviously considerable effort (and considerable discussion) has been expended
in trying to make it as watertight as possible - but by people incapable of seeing outside
their narrow interests.
The other thing that is striking is the extent to which the Whitehouse staff are stuffed
full of Obomber holdovers conspiring in every breath of their working lives to find ways and
means to undermine and attack the US President.
'Did the "leak" about Trump & Zelensky conversation originate in Ukraine?
Has Ukrainian foreign office staff or SBU leaked it to the alleged "whistle blower"?
'It seems that former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Klimkin boasts about it.'
https://twitter.com/PavloKlimkin/status/1176736459455422465
Google translate: "To keep things going, Ukraine will remain in the history of the United
States as the country that led to the impeachment of the US President. Not a very fun
prospect. But now everyone understands what we are capable of"
In the vid I linked @58, the Judicial Watch person suspects it's the work of
D-Congressman Schiff as it bears the hallmarks of his craftmanship , but check the vid
for confirmation.
BM @63--
You interpreted it correctly. The best site I've visited for information on Gabbard is
this Wikipedia page
that lists most everything together all on one page and links to other Wiki pages about
her.
Draining the Swamp and depriving its denizens of their food is an election ploy that ought
to get universal support; it sure garnered Trump votes in 2016 but he did nothing afterwards
and allowed corrupt officials to remain in their posts. IMO, the Duopoly's parties are both
corrupt from head to toe as is the Current Oligarchy that pulls their strings. All three
entities need to be slain for US citizens to regain their freedom and ability to control
their federal, state, and local governments. That such a conception is termed radical
indicates just how far from the center those proclaiming it radical have become--they prove
themselves to be the true radicals: 100% Reactionaries defending the vile and corrupt.
Why is Trump"s DoS stonewalling what ought to be seen as an ally in this affair? More
Obama holdovers?
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 26 2019 20:00 utc | 58
It seems like the mole-like permanent puppet-string-puller* network installed - or
more likely expanded and deepened, and made more permanently pro-Dem - by Obomber throughout
the US government is much like an infestation of mould, whose spores are impervious to
destruction and constantly reinfest the infestation.
* (but not puppetmaster, because members of the network are themselves puppets to the Deep
State).
Another interesting aspect is this. Whistle blower gives evidence to Trump appointed intel
honcho, who forwards evidence to higher Trump appointed intel honcho, who then takes evidence
to Trump appointed presidential legal advisor for clearance.
Higher Trump intel honcho then waits until phone call transcript is made public before
sending whistle blower evidence to senate intel circus.
So either massive conspiracy by those around Trump to take him down with very week ammo,
or option b - those involved in RussiaGate being set up for massive fall.
"... "Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer?" The true corruption is what's legal. There's no law against influence peddling, as in Hunter Biden offering himself for hire. ..."
"... As for the other question, no question with zero evidence need be answered. Is Trump using his influence to advance his son and son-in-law's career? That isn't a legit question eiher. ..."
Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting
the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian interference in the election was a big issue....
"Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine?
Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?" The true corruption is what's legal. There's no law against influence peddling, as
in Hunter Biden offering himself for hire.
As for the other question, no question with zero
evidence need be answered. Is Trump using his influence to advance his son and son-in-law's
career? That isn't a legit question eiher.
So who is this "savvy official"? Who is this courageous whistleblower who boldly shone the
light of truth upon the mechanisms of power in the interests of the common man? Who is this
brave, selfless individual who set off an impeachment inquiry by taking a stand and
revealing the fact that the US president made a phone call in July urging Ukrainian president
Volodymyr Zelensky to help investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son?
Well believe it or not, according to The
New York Times this brave, noble whistleblower who the mainstream media are currently
championing is an officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.
"The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his
re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a CIA officer who was detailed
to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his
identity," The New York Times reports . "The man has since returned
to the CIA, the people said. Little else is known about him."
So there you have it. A mysterious stranger from the
lying, torturing , propagandizing , drug
trafficking ,
assassinating , coup-staging , warmongering , psychopathic CIA was
working in the White House, heroically provided the political/media class with politically
powerful information out of the goodness of his heart, and then vanished off into the Langley
sunset. Clearly there is nothing suspicious about this story at all.
In all seriousness, even to call this spook a "whistleblower" is ridiculous on its face. You
don't get to call someone from the US intelligence community a whistleblower unless they are
actually whistleblowing on the US intelligence community. That's not a thing. A CIA officer who
exposes information about government officials is an operative performing an operation unless
proven otherwise, because that's what the CIA does; it liberally
leaks information wherever it's convenient for CIA agendas while withholding all other
information behind a veil of government secrecy.
A CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA's permission is
a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a spook doing
spook things. You can recognize the latter by the way the mass media supports, applauds
and
employs them . You can recognize the former by the way they have been persecuted,
imprisoned, and/or died under
mysterious circumstances .
But if you listen to the billionaire media, we should be calling this CIA officer a
whistleblower, we should be
enraged at The New York Times for exposing that CIA officer's identity, and we should be
raising a small fortune on
GoFundMe for "legal aid" that this CIA officer will never need.
"The idea that the media needs to 'protect' a high-level CIA officer making explosive
claims about the president, which have now been used as the basis for impeachment
proceedings, is such an insane perversion of journalistic ethics," journalist Michael Tracey
tweeted
today on this new development.
While all this political/media class cheerleading for whistleblower protections is going on,
the most prominent whistleblower in America remains imprisoned for taking a principled stand
against secret grand juries while being driven into crippling debt. Chelsea Manning is still
racking up fines of $1,000 per day while locked in a Virginia federal detention center for
refusing to testify against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The mainstream press that is so
keen to champion a "whistleblower" who works for the CIA and provided information which feeds
into America's fake partisan pro wrestling feud has been almost completely silent on the actual
whistleblower who exposed actual US war crimes.
"The courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning has now been held in a federal detention
center in Alexandria, Virginia for more than six months," reads a recent article by World
Socialist Website , one of the only news outlets to consistently report on Manning's plight.
"Manning has not been charged with or committed any crime. She was sent to jail on March 8,
2019 for refusing to testify before a secret grand jury that has indicted persecuted
WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange, who published the information she leaked
exposing rampant US imperialist criminality."
"The vindictive treatment of Chelsea Manning has included 'administrative segregation' -- a
prison euphemism for solitary confinement -- and being fined an unprecedented $1,000 per day
for refusing to answer grand jury questions," WSWS reports. "By the time she might be released
in October 2020, she will be left owing the US government as much as $440,000. Convicted
antiwar activist Jeremy Hammond, who provided intelligence documents to WikiLeaks, has been
also brought to the same jail as Manning in order to coerce him into giving false
testimony."
" On a scale of 'haha' to 'lol,' how likely would you say it is that politicians' sudden
interest in whistleblowing will lead to the reform of the Espionage Act, which the government
has routinely used to jail the sources behind some of the most important stories in US
history? " tweeted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in response to an Onion article
satirizing the latest hypocrisy.
Pointing out hypocrisy is such a common practice in politics that it often wears a bit thin
these days, especially since it's frequently done in a disingenuous way, but when implemented
with intellectual honesty it serves a very useful purpose: it shows when people aren't really
being truthful about the position that they are taking.
The political/media class of the United States do not care about whistleblowers. They do not
care about truth, and they do not care about justice. They do not care about holding power to
account, because they exist only to serve power.
I don't pretend to know what the CIA's game is here; it probably isn't to remove Trump from
office because everyone knows that will not happen and failed impeachments
historically boost a president's popularity . But I do know that everyone cheerleading for
this fake "whistleblower" while ignoring the real ones has exposed themselves.
"... "This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern." ..."
"... "It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call." ..."
"... "The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Committee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the Intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?" ..."
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
"This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about
differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern."
"It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was
breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not
have been briefed on the call."
"The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my
work on the House Intel Committee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the Intel
oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee
members?"
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower
complaint, I immediately looked at the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033.
Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say
that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should
have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a
person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One
cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority
over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters
are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail
or that there is no toilet tissue in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an
activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject of an "intelligence
activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or
his phone calls is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should
have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower
complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in
Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing
less that NatSec coup attempt.
The complaint looks like a "lawyer-assisted document." Produced by a team, not by a single
person. It clearly was carefully designed to inflict maximum damage to replace Russiagate
hysteria with a new one and put Trump on the defensive.
Which was fully achieved. Pelosi decision is also a huge pressure point even when actual
impeachment is above her political capabilities.
But it definitely replaces the pressure of Mueller/Weissmann commission on Trump with an
equal or higher pressure, and may even surpass in the effectiveness Andrew Weissmann witch
hunt.
Now "full of Schiff" members of House have a new bone to chew. They can drag Trump thru
the mud for the next six months, hoping that this will turn the election their way.
Which might well be a wrong assumption, as it cemented Trump coalition and outraged people
who were ready to abandon Trump, so the percentage of former Trump supporters who would stay
home, but now will go to the voting booth might be an unpleasant surprise for neoliberal
Democrats.
Previously Trump chances were IMHO not that great as he proved to be a very weak,
impulsive President, one-trick pony who assumes that bullying is the diplomacy and
negotiating strategy all-in-one, who accepted rabid neocons like Bolton into his
administration, who was pandering to Netanyahu, and who he betrayed most of his election
promises. Without Russiagate2 he can run only on inertia and stock market value, which is not
much. So I would consider the possibility the Trump welcomes this impeachment process as his
last chance. He might well anticipate difficulties competing against Warren; who would beat
him on domestic policy for at least half of Trump base, and she has less baggage in foreign
policy, so she can attract anti-war independents who in 2016 voted for Trump).
In any case, the person who signed it might well be just a pre-selected "placeholder" for
information which was leaked by other people, much like Steele relations with Fusion GPS,
when it is unclear whether Steele supplied information to them or vice versa, or
CIA-connected Nelly Ohr provided material to Steele so that he returned it as his own,
supposedly obtained from a "respectable foreign source", whitewashing the real source.
The scenario of operation really looks like the second stage of the "palace coup" run by
Brennan faction in CIA and other intelligence agencies (surviving members of McCabe faction
in FBI.) It start with some equivalent of Steele dossier produced by a supposedly
"respectable source" also closely resembles Russiagate with neoliberal MSM driving the
hysteria even before facts were known.
That's why I would call this scandal Russiagate2, not Ukraine-gate. As Proverbs 16:4 puts
it, "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of
evil."
New information suggests that this improper rumor-blower complaint was crafted by a group of
CIA employees and was submitted by a medium or high level CIA employee, possibly an Obama or
Brennan appointee of Samantha Power mold, in coordination with allies in Congress, possibly
in Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment
proceedings.
A CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA's permission
is a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a
spook.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute ( 50 USC sec. 3033 ) that allows an
"intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his
phone calls. Such matters are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
That means that this is the second phase of Obama/Brennan's coup attempt, the color
revolution against Trump which started with Russiagate hysteria in December 2016 (Steele fake
plus Brannan's "17 intelligence agencies memo" fake) and culminated in Mueller appointment in
May 2017 and two years of witch hunt.
An interesting detail is that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form was probably
doctored specifically to allow rumors to be treated as whistleblower protected activity
Looks like it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature
of the rumorblower's report.
Another possibility is that Ukrainian SBU (which for all practical purposes is fully
controlled by CIA outlet) provided those materials to the Brennan faction and that, not
internal leak in WH, what started the whole mess.
It is unclear what this CIA's gambit is about; the move looks very questionable. It
probably isn't to remove Trump from office because failed impeachments historically boost a
president's popularity.
But I do know that everyone cheerleading for this fake "whistleblower" while ignoring the
real ones like Snowden and Manning has exposed themselves as upper hypocrites. Which includes
most of neoliberal MSM like CNN, MSNBC, NYT and WaPo.
A general principle of law (and common sense) holds that one can commit a wrong to prevent
a greater wrong. The greater wrong is Biden juicing Ukraine. The lesser wrong is Trump making
a suggestion to re-open investigation on him despite the fact that he is Trump's possible
political opponent in 2020 elections(actually Biden is an ideal opponent for Trump so taking
him out is an extremely stupid move), albeit at best Trump signature mafioso-like bulling
manner.
Citing Tulsi Gabbard recent interview by FOXNews :
"'I have been consistent in saying that I believe that impeachment in this juncture would
be terribly divisive for our country at a time when we are already extremely divided,'
Gabbard explained. 'Hyper-partisanship is one of the things that's driving our country
apart.'
"'I think it's important to defeat Donald Trump. That's why I'm running for president, but
I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard, making that decision,'
she said.
Regardless of how you feel about Gabbard, you have to give her credit on this front.
America is extremely divided today. This impeachment on false premises saga is just another
example of Dems role in widening this division and endangering the political stability in the
country.
"... The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Senator Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California. ..."
"... By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes. ..."
"... What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president, he ordered then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forego a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts. ..."
"... There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt? ..."
"... This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or -- potentially -- too corrupt (Harris).. ..."
"... Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true ..."
"... Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are 38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website. ..."
"... It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for either Trump or Clinton. ..."
"... Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. ..."
Even before seeing the transcript of the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,
Nancy Pelosi threw the door wide open to impeachment.
Though the transcript did not remotely justify the advanced billing of a "quid pro quo," Pelosi set in motion a process that is
already producing a sea change in the politics of 2020.
The great Beltway battle for the balance of this year, and perhaps next, will be over whether the Democrats can effect a coup
against a president many of them have never recognized as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he took the oath
of office.
Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.
She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan
compromise on gun control, the cost of prescription drugs, and infrastructure. She has put her and her party's fate and future on
the line.
With Pelosi's assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a cold case into a blazing issue. If the
Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail, and fall back, or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president,
that will be the climactic moment of Pelosi's career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party's hopes of capturing
the presidency, on the belief that she and her colleagues can persuade the country to support the indictment of a president for high
crimes.
One wonders: do Democrats, blinded by hatred of Trump, ever wonder how that 40 percent of the nation that sees him as the repository
of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the ballot box, they remove him in this way?
The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already,
this past week, fallen behind Senator Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking
the lead nationally for the nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his candidacy.
By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden
and son Hunter will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.
What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president, he ordered then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko
to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forego a $1 billion
U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he himself was unaware of his son's business
ties. All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why
was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor
whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of the potential corruption of Hunter Biden, and
of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between
now and New Hampshire.
This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the
center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.
Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to become the progressives' first choice in
2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her remaining opposition is fast fading.
Senator Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the first battleground state. Senator
Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10 days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris, and
Booker fade, and "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6 percent in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the probable
nominee.
One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too risky, given the allegations against
him and his son, will be the new endorsements his candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.
If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit
the Creators website at www.creators.com.
They would be, if it were Sanders to get the nomination. Warren's chances are, obviously, better than Biden's - anyone's, save
for complete fringe wackos, are - but, if they really wanted to win, they would need Sanders. Or, even better, Gabbard. But Sanders
is too independent, dangerously so, and Gabbard is an outright enemy of their totalitarian cult. Hence, they pick Warren, who
might be vaaaaaaaaaaguely considered Sanders-lite. But lite is not enough against someone like Trump. Or, even worse for them,
they resort to all possible and impossible machinations to still get Biden nominated. It'll be a screaming mistake, but it's not
excluded at all, given how easily the've just been lured into a trap.
Happened to tune in to Rush Limbaugh yesterday just as he was saying that Pelosi's motivation to spin the wheels was at least
in part to kill two birds with one stone--Trump AND Biden. Mehhh...maybe, but it's been clear from the beginning that the Movers
and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that
the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or -- potentially -- too corrupt (Harris)..
Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true . Incrowd-lite.
Bernie of course is the big unknown. Will he prevail over Warren?
If this scandal sinks Biden and Trump together, the Dems will come out ahead because they are not committed to Biden as their
nominee. I think Warren will be the biggest net winner. My prediction is that we see an impeachment with the Senate voting on
party lines to acquit. That could still be very damaging to Trump's election chances, if the portion of the public who dislikes
Trump decide that he abused his power.
Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are
38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be
swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website.
The main question, other than whether there is something damning that shows up, is whether the majority of voters think a quid
pro quo is necessary for corruption to be an impeachable offense. It is required in a criminal bribery conviction, but impeachment
isn't a criminal trial. Is the president using a diplomatic call to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political
rivals something the 25% will be okay with? If they believe the story of Biden's corruption, will they see that as justification
for using a diplomatic talk to push for an investigation into it? Will moderate voters who have a high opinion of Biden from the
his time as Vice President view this as an unfair attack on him or will they change their view of him to match Trump's narrative?
Biden is in a tough spot, because he will be smeared here whether he is guilty or not. Trump is very good as slinging mud to
distract from his actions. And most Americans are very unlikely to parse through the information overload to figure out whether
the fired prosecutor is corrupt, whether the decision to fire him came from Joe or the state department/UK/EU/local protest, whether
Hunter Biden was qualified for the job with his ivy law degree/experience on corp boards/previous consulting experience, and whether
the investigation into Burisma was actuall ongoing when Shokin was fired. Who has time to read through everything and figure out
which side is manufacturing a controversy?
But if Biden decides to go down a Martyr, it wouldn't be difficult for him to take Trump with him.
It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections
in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack
on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for
either Trump or Clinton.
These numbers are ominous and do not bode well for the future of this thing of ours.
Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their
conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging
to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were
started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. If Democrats
want to cut losses, they should stop it now and, using military terms, regroup immediately, nominating Gabbard who consistently
opposed this stillborn impeachment stupidity. But something makes me think they won't. Their visceral hatred to an anti-war candidate
like her is simply too strong.
I think you are missing that Trump's lawyers can subpoena people and drag up a lot of dirt on the Democrats too. I think it can
go both ways.
Still Warren can be tough for Trump. She is not tainted by Clinton. She is a chameleon; will sound sufficiently WASP in New
England and sufficiently woke in California and new York. If Buttgig becomes her sidekick he can get all the gays on-board.
You're missing one thing about Warren: she's a wonk. And she actually has some good ideas alongside the more crazy ones. Even
Tucker Carlson praised her book.
But Warren is an absolute stiff. Zero charisma. Like Kerry or Gore on their very worst day. And in this day and age, where
the only thing that counts for the overwhelming majority of low information voters are soundbites and how telegenic you come off
in a debate, someone like Trump will chew her up and spit her out for breakfast.
Warren? OK. I don't see how she could be any worse than Trump. Plus, we might not feel like we were snorkeling in a cesspool all
the time, like we do now.
Literally every progressive I know save one is team Warren. I think there might be an age divide. Progressives under thirty are
more likely to be for Sanders, and over thirty for Warren.
I have no idea what will happen with the election. But if Trump wins it after the Dems have done nothing for four years except
impeach him - every day is going to be like Christmas.
I sincerely hope that Trump is right in thinking that Biden is his biggest threat, because this affair is going to ensure Warren
is the nominee. I think a lot of proggy Dems know this as well, which partly explains their enthusiasm for impeachment at this
particular moment (not that they haven't been itching for this since November 8, 2016).
I agree Biden and Bernie are toast but Warren is far from a sure thing. Of all the democratic candidates Tulsi is the most attractive
in more ways than one and I could see Tulsi appealing to the many Trump voters who voted for him because he claimed to be non-interventionist
only to discover he is a war-pig like the rest of them. Imagine Tulsi in a debate with Trump! If not Tulsi I would bet another
high profile Dem will enter the race because Warren is un-electable and I would not be surprised to see Hillary get in the race
at the last minute. American's love re-matches and come-back stories.
In breaking news: Pelosi has just revealed who was behind all this. It's Cardinal Richelieu Russians again.
Does the girl even understand that, by saying so, she's, basically, stating that she's the chief Russian agent out there, because
she was the one who initiated that freak show?
Jesus Harold Christ, what a travelling circus. And this passes for a parliament these days.
Ukrainegate is Watergate in reverse. The farcical impeachment unintentionally acts as a foil, amplifying the significance of the
Ukraine stories in the press (John Solomon, Andrew McCarthy) which reveal a culture of corruption and venality permeating the
Democratic leadership: the Clintons, the Bidens, the DNC, the current Democratic caucus, and the entire deep state remnants of
the obama administration. We haven't seen election interference like this since the Watergate break-in and coverup. This impeachment
is the coup-de-grâce of the Democratic Party not just Biden. The Democrat faithful now have a choice between Scylla and Charybdis
- self-proclaimed socialists with a tenuous hold on reality, or the discredited establishment. As an old-school Democrat, I can
only hope that Trump buries them in 2020, so that the Democrats finally get the message and return to their pre-Clinton roots.
It is insane to pursue impeachment this late in a divisive President's mandate. The Democrats should spend their efforts selecting
a moderate nominee that doesn't show signs of cognitive decline (Only candidate that matches these requirements is Tulsi Gabbard.
) rather than make Trump a "victim" in the eyes of many.
Drama Don is doing a good enough job himself to make sure that the Democrats win in 2020. "Trump fatigue" is going to be the
most used expression next fall if Trump runs. If Trump is pushed out before the election, the Republicans may choose a charismatic
new nominee who actually has a chance to win in 2020. The biggest asset that the Democrats have in 2020 is Trump.
Somebody, somewhere, had decided that Democrats stand little chance with Biden, because he is so old and gaffe prone. So they
have put their money on Warren. Warren will choose Buttigieg as VP candidate, primarily because they want all that gay billionaire
money flowing in. At the same time, they tick the SJW boxes -woman, gay candidates, so the left will love them. The fix is in.
Hence the stupid "impeachment " controversy, which is obviously a sham to knock Biden out.
I voted for Trump, not as a Republican because I despise both political parties. I voted for him based on the need for a nationalist
trade policy, and especially because I was so against the TPP --and President Trump rewarded me for that vote his first week in
office by pulling the US out of TPP negotiations. Also I have great respect for you, Mr. Buchanan, and learned much from the 3
of your books I've read and recommended to others. But it looks like President Trump has been using his office for personal political
gain, so I am sorry to admit I support the impeachment investigation to bring the facts to light and make a judgement of whether
it is true he used the office to solicit a foreign country to help undermine his political opponent. But even before this, I'd
decided I will not vote for him again, mainly because I have become alarmed at the looming climate crisis, and believe we need
urgent policy towards full decarbonization of the global energy economy. But that doesn't motivate me to support the impeachment
inquiry, a path I hate and regret...but it seems there is no other way to demand the President not abuse his office and manipulate
foreign governments to help his political career. That is no patriot, that is corrupt and an embarrassment to our nation.
"...effect a coup against a president many of them have never seen as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he
took the oath of office."
Every single word of that describes the Republicans in Congress during the eight years Obama was president. Every single syllable.
Remember that birth certificate? And remember that Dick Tracy villain, Pocket-Neck McConnell, an excrescence that still infects
us, standing up and actually saying, with a straight face, "Our ONLY goal is to make Obama a one-term president." Never mind an
economy that was in free-fall, right Mitch? Or a couple of bothersome wars going on?
And what about how, for the very first time in history, Standard and Poor's downgraded America's credit rating, all because
of completely meaningless Republican obstruction about the debt ceiling? And when I say completely meaningless, I mean completely
meaningless. Now, under Trump, the deficit is approaching a trillion, and those very same Republicans couldn't give a hoot.
It's all in the great 2012 book, It's Even Worse Than it Looks, by Ornstein and Mann. We've had partisanship and gridlock before.
But what was new is how the Republicans behaved under Obama: they treated him as completely illegitimate from the word go, and
absolutely refused to work with him under any and all circumstances. The stimulus, which by the way saved the entire world economy
from complete meltdown, didn't get a single Republican vote.
But Republicans can feel proud of one thing: their disgusting, scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs tactics are now business-as-usual
in Washington. Probably for all time. Nice going, guys.
Warren is the best candidate to defeat Trump. She is super smart ,honest and works hard as heck for the non 1% to get more of
a fair shake. If she softens her hard left positions she could be a great candidate
A general principle of law (and common sense) holds that one can commit a wrong to prevent a
greater wrong.
The greater wrong is Biden juicing Ukraine. The lesser wrong is Trump making a suggestion, albeit with a mafioso-like subtext.
That's always been a source of puzzlement/astonishment for me given Trump's stated hatred
for all things Obama and vow to drain the swamp -- particularly the holdovers at Justice,
where you had Comey's daughter as the lead prosecutor against Epstein, amongst other notable
examples.
I see Judicial Watch has filed what appears to be a FOIA lawsuit against the Trump
State Department seeking documents
over firing of Biden-Ukraine prosecutor and explains the situation in a 2.5min video that
I can't fault. THis begs the question: Why is Trump"s DoS stonewalling what ought to be seen
as an ally in this affair? More Obama holdovers?
@ Sorghum 49 Judge Naploanito said on Fox that what Trump did was undeniably a crime.
Actually, it is deniable.
from Roll Call
The Justice Department has decided that President Donald Trump did not cross a legal line
in his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The department said its
review of the call -- in which Trump asked Ukraine to "do us a favor" and talk to his
personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr about opening a potential
corruption investigation connected to Trump's main political rival -- did not find a "thing
of value" that could be quantified as campaign finance law requires. Opposition research can
be a "thing of value" and therefore a potential crime, election law experts said, but the
term is not well defined and has not been fully tested in court. Some experts backed the
Justice Department view on legal grounds; some didn't. . . here
Public Law 107-155 amended amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide
bipartisan
campaign reform. The law places requirements on the collection and disbursement of funds, as
in SEC. 303. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN which inserts the following language:
(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
``(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or
implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or
local election;
``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
``(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 304(f)(3)); or
``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.'' . . here
Nowhere in the law is there any control put upon information. The law is about money, with
only a brief mention of "other thing of value" under the general category of money.
The fact Trump "burned " the official transcript tells you all you need to know.
Not that Biden is clean. Dems are handing the reelection to Trump on a silver platter as
the illuminist leaders controlling both parties have commanded. A failed impeachment attempt
is exactly what Trump wants since Biden will go down in flames. His Ukraine baggage should
have ruled him out from the start. They might as well have just run Hillary again but then it
would have been even more transparent that they have no intention of trying to win.
Like I say, its all fake wrestling, the outcome is decided in advance. What follows is
scripted entertainment to keep people from discussing the real issues (not that the majority
even know what those issues are living as they do in the false reality that has been created
for them)
This "Trump is a traitor" garbage is so preposterous that my interest in it was beginning to
wane. But last night an International News 'outlet' broadcast a snippet of the fact-free
dross and drivel from the mouths of his Dem accusers. It soon became obvious that the blather
was a virtual carbon copy of the emotive claptrap deployed to accuse Saddam Hussein of
heinous imaginary crimes in order to justify bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age.
So if anyone wants to get a handle on the course of this Star Chamber style witch-hunt
just cast your mind back to that sorry episode of AmeriKKKan "History".
The Dems are trying to paint Trump as the New, Improved, Saddam Hussein. And, as was the
case with Saddam, no made-up fact or outrageous lie will be "off the table". It's started
already.
US House Of Representatives Launched Impeachment Inquiry Against President Donald
Trump
Donate
US Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
On September 24 th , US Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
announced that Democrats are launching an impeachment inquiry against US President Donald
Trump.
"The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law," she said.
The reasoning behind the proceedings are the unconfirmed news reports that Trump pressured
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into
"digging dirt" on Democratic Presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden and
his son.
"Today I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official
impeachment inquiry," Pelosi said.
This marks the fourth time in US history a president has faced impeachment.
Trump allegedly used $250 million in military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip into
forcing the Ukrainian side provide contact with a whistleblower.
This is quite similar to allegations against Joe Biden, back when he was vice president of
holding financial aid to Kiev until the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was released from his
post. He allegedly was about to launch an investigation into a business, which Hunter Biden,
Joe Biden's son had a stake in.
Nancy Pelosi had repeatedly resisted calls to being impeachment inquiries, but a breaking
point appears to have been reached.
"This week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions
which would benefit him politically," Pelosi said. "The actions of the Trump presidency
revealed dishonorable facts of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of
national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections."
Trump "admitting" is rather vague, as he said he had spoke to Zelensky, and had mentioned
Biden, but nothing else he is being accused of. The Ukrainian side, on several occasions, also
said that there was no pressure and refused to acknowledge the topic of Joe Biden had
arisen.
"You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike
Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo!" Trump tweeted.
Ever since the inquiry was announced Trump has gone to Twitter claiming that this was
"Presidential harassment" and a "total Witch Hunt," since Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and Maxine
Waters had "never even saw the transcript" of the call between Trump and Zelensky.
Trump said that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had received permission from the Ukrainian
government to release the transcript of the call, to prove that nothing illicit had taken
place.
He initially said that he wouldn't authorize the release of the transcript, but has since
come round.
Republicans rushed to defend Trump in various interviews, saying that the Democrats were
desperate and scrambling to construct any narrative and theme, after the complete failure of
Russiagate.
Critics have said the transcript, on its own, is insufficient to settle the matter.
"The release of the transcript is necessary but far from sufficient," said Ned Price, a
National Security Council spokesman in the Obama White House. "At its heart, this is about an
urgent, credible whistleblower complaint involving 'multiple actions.' The law says Congress
must be provided with it. This will remain a cover-up until that happens."
The transcript's release may be followed by testimony from the whisteblower, Rep. Adam
Schiff said.
"We're in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's testimony as soon as
this week," Schiff tweeted.
Whether this would actually lead to impeachment is unknown, and also rather unlikely, since
chances are the Democrats are more likely shooting themselves in the foot by trying to stir yet
another scandal. The entire situation may backfire, since Trump is being accused of
specifically the same thing that Biden was accused of doing years ago.
"... "During the Ukraine cries in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine, what was going on between them." --Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... More information on Hunter Biden. He served on the President's Advisory Council of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up after Congress banned the CIA from pursuing regime change. A lot of the coordination and assistance for the Ukraine coup probably passed through that 'non-profit.' Joe Biden was Obama's point person, and Hunter Biden was probably Joe's eyes, ears, and gopher at NDI. ..."
"... As a side benefit, Hunter Biden would have been in an excellent position, both from his work at NDI and at Burisma, to meet the movers and shakers in post-coup Ukraine and coordinate disinformation campaigns as needed. The Ukrainians would have been eager to help as the solvency of the country depended on US loans. ..."
"During the Ukraine cries in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who
were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine,
what was going on between them." --Victoria Nuland.
More information on Hunter Biden. He served on the President's Advisory Council of the
National Democratic Institute (NDI), a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy,
which was set up after Congress banned the CIA from pursuing regime change. A lot of the
coordination and assistance for the Ukraine coup probably passed through that 'non-profit.'
Joe Biden was Obama's point person, and Hunter Biden was probably Joe's eyes, ears, and
gopher at NDI.
Immediately after the coup, Hunter was appointed to the board of the strategically
critical Burisma energy company, Ukraine's largest producer of natural gas. From what I have
seen, the US likes to have its assets sit on the Board of strategically critically energy
companies.
And is Ukraine ever strategically important!!! Apart from the fact the Russian pipelines
pass through the country, "Ukraine has an estimated 42 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of
technically recoverable shale gas reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), ranking its deposits as the fourth largest in Europe." https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ukraine_and_fracking
Again, Hunter Biden's appointment would not have been by chance. He would have been put
there to once again to be Joe Biden's eyes, ears, and gopher.
As a side benefit, Hunter Biden would have been in an excellent position, both from his
work at NDI and at Burisma, to meet the movers and shakers in post-coup Ukraine and
coordinate disinformation campaigns as needed. The Ukrainians would have been eager to help
as the solvency of the country depended on US loans.
So are we about to witness the first color revolution on US soil? Could be
This is an extract from a tweet linked over at Xymphora's Sept 26 post..
The Biden corruption story is not one invented by Trump. In fact, it was covered by the
NY Times last May. And it includes a roster of not just the Biden family but Obama, Clinton
& Kerry sycophants getting rich in Ukraine as well. This is horrifying.
I'm not a NYT subscriber but it's probably worth a subscriber's time to search NYT May,
2019 archive for Biden/Ukraine stories...
"Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did
he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer?
Has the U.S. public an interest in knowing the answers to these questions?"
All worthy of investigation, but not an investigation by Ukraine.
A mayor untruth easily identifiable in the "whistleblower complaint" is that the guy claims
that Trump tried to pressure Z into keeping the prosecutor general Lutsenko who he "praised"
and who came up with "allegations" involving Biden etc.
If you read the phone call memo it is obvious that Trump is praising Shokhin, the
prosecutor general fired by Porky on behalf of Biden. And Z tells Trump that he will put in
"100% my guy" as new prosecutor general (replacing Lutsenko), to which Trump has no objection
at all.
So this is bollocks heard through the grapevine at best.
the fraudulent Muellergate investigation was closed the day before, so Trump could not be
accused of obstructing an ongoing "investigation"
Posted by: BM | Sep 26 2019 18:08 utc
Waiving off questions as "evil" is not answering them. Actually it was the tactics that
"fraudulent Muellergate" adepts are using for all the years, it suits them fine, but does not
suit those annoying critics.
Trump was anyway accused of obstruction whatever he does and does not. And while i cam see
how inqueries into DNC hack cultists from Crowdstrike can be seen interfering with
Muellergate, why did not he inquieried into Burisma Holdings earlier?
It's obvious enough so far that anyone who's been nurturing a strong belief that Trump
needs to be, or ought to be, removed from office ASAP are predisposed to take every
"bombshell" and "smoking gun" at face value.
This faction is not limited to acute TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) sufferers, who
regard Trump as a foul and villanous Usurper who (with the help of the corrupt or decadent
Electoral College) heinously blocked Empress-in-Waiting Clinton from ascending to her
rightful place on the Oval Office Throne.
It also includes self-identified "progressives" and would-be leftists who aren't
necessarily sympathetic towards Clinton and the Democratic Party, but buy into the notion
that since many of Trump's actions and policies in office, and/or his well-known history of
shady business dealings, establish that he is so obviously a man of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" that he is indeed unfit for office and ripe for impeachment.
Some "alternative" news/opinion journalists and pundits either share or implicitly condone
an attitude of, "Well, the Zelensky call is just the latest in a series of fairly flimsy
frames. But, hey, Trump is manifestly a war criminal and self-serving Mafia-type
über-gangster, so he certainly deserves to be impeached." They seem oblivious or
indifferent to the noxious "the end justifies the means" element in this perspective.
Put another way, only persons already wearing Impeachment Goggles are ready, willing, and
able to see this latest Beltway/Ukraine imbroglio as-- at last!-- a clear-cut instance of
Trump "crossing the line" into High Crime territory.
I subscribe to the view that this is the institutional "Resistance"'s attempt to revive
the discredited and unpopular "Russian collusion" narrative by flipping it into a "Ukraine
skulduggery" narrative. Thus, as with the failed "Russian collusion" frame,
Impeachment-Goggle wearers vehemently insist on isolating an ostensible rotten tree or two,
while studiously ignoring the haunted forest.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether escalating this contretemps into an Official
Impeachment Inquiry will succeed in stampeding an ambivalent public into a wholesale disgust
with Trump that will destroy either his administration or his candidacy.
Despite the predictable high-minded rhetoric about upholding noble principles like the
Rule of Law, and "saving democracy", burying Trump's political career is the actual point of
the exercise.
b is quite right. It is amazing how widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome has become: Trump's
request to the Ukrainian President might have offended ultra-nationalist sentimentalists, but
it is both sensible and of interest.
Why did Biden's boy suddenly become worth hiring at $50000 per month? Does anyone NOT know
the answer?
The truth is that the Ukrainian fascists, put into power by the Democratic Party-at a cost of
billions to the US taxpayer- worked hard to make sure that their patron Hillary became
President. How hard is of interest to all.
I don't like Trump either but to suggest that these are impeachable offences is not only
wrong but stupid: the dirt sticking to Biden will spread around the whole party. It would be
a very bad tactical error for Sanders to go along with this nonsense the way he did with
Russiagate-its separated at birth twin. But he will. I expect that that is what Trump is
hoping for.
I have to disagree with B on this. Trump said multiple times in an interview that he would
accept information against an political opponent from an foreign government. Both Trump and
Giuliani have stated on video that the inquiry into Biden was political, not judicial.
Ariochiincorrect.
"If it has such interest why shouldn't the president concern himself with pushing the
Ukrainian president to investigate the issues?"
There are much better ways for one country to influence another's legal processes. When
Trump conducted his phone call with Zelensky, he stupidly said words that would end up in a
transcript and come back to haunt him, like currently is happening. It just points to the
inability of Trump's "advisers" to keep him in check.
Of course, one could say that this is all a calculated political strategy. We'll just
have to see how it plays out. And it is reasonable to see that Democrats have to follow the
evidence towards a possible impeachment. Otherwise they totally abdicate their role
conducting oversight. The executive branch in the U.S. has been accumulating more and more
power (and yes, even under Obama), and Congress is becoming less and less relevant as a
result. At some point it either has to rebalance, or the trend towards autocracy
continues.
And yes, there could be subterfuge in Clintonian circles tossing Biden out as red meat.
But he did do what he is implicated in, and his son Hunter took absolute advantage of his
father's position in the Obama admin when he got on the Board of Directors of Burma. His
position there was rife with corruption.
Good, strong argument, b! At the time, the Ukraine "government" in many respects was
merely an arm of the Obama Whitehouse/CIA cabal as communications and events clearly show.
Since Trump's election, that connection was deeply downgraded but not completely severed.
Then Zelensky was elected, and he needed to establish a positive relationship with his
ultimate master, Trump. The overtness of Giuliani's activities is a major plus, along with
the ineptitude of the DoJ holdovers from Obama in the Russiagate debacle, as well as the
Cases against Flynn & Rafiekian, the latter's having just been dismissed which ought to
be shared by Flynn. Then there's plenty of dirt to be mined from the Nuland "Fuck the EU"
tape that was never put to good use.
"Techno_Fog Consider this: the #Democrats are really freaking out because @realDonaldTrump
@POTUS
#AGBarr and #JohnDurham have caught on to the crimes of #Crowdstike and it's role in the
#RussiaHoax and #Spygate @KerriKupecDOJ, #FISAabuses, #NSA 4th Amendment violations."
That's a lot of meat for the grinder. I wrote yesterday that IMO it was too late for Trump
to deal with Hillary Clinton. Well, it looks like I was premature as this gets at the Clinton
Machine from another angle; and IMO, it's very much in the nation's interest to deal with the
law breaking and corruption of that bunch. There's so much corruption and unlawful activity
occurring now and in the past that its unraveling must begin somewhere if the citizenry is to
ever regain control of the federal government. No, I'm not extolling Trump; I am indicting
the Clintons, DNC, the Current Oligarchy, and all their minions.
Really good conversation that gets to the heart of the new UkraineGate that has morphed from
RussiaGate, that you will not hear on the corporate media.
" Biden's intervention smells of corruption or at least undue interference by a U.S. official
for personal reasons."
Such interventions are bad for many reasons. Law enforcement ideally is about the law and
not political gains. Heavy handed firing and hiring prosecutors according to whom they
managed to prosecute (preferably, political opponents) and whom they stayed away from
(preferably, political allies plus all kin and kith of the current people on top) is at best
frown upon. A more enlightened approach (semi-enlightened?) is to do it discreetly, without
bragging.
In case of "friendly, but heavy-handed" foreign pressure, lack of discretion turns the
obedient target to laughing stock. We should not begrudge Russians and "Russian speakers"
additional occasions for levity, but the morale among hapless Ukrainians surely took a
hit.
Biden's exploits were noted with some chortling a long time ago, but now there is a slew of
new articles like
----------
"To give or not to give"
One cannot envy the new president of independent* Ukraine. He has to choose between Joe
Biden (the most serious Democratic candidate) becoming his enemy, or Donald Trump, the
current president. If he finds kompromat (compromizing materials) on Biden and gives them to
Trump, Biden and his Democratic allies will become enemies, but if he fails, Trump will be an
enemy. [implications that alliance with Russia would not have such dire consequences]
Attack as the best form of defence is standard for the Dems. A psychatrist would call it
projection - projecting their own sins onto someone else.
Of course Hunter, Kerrry's stepson, the China fund, Burisma and most of all Uranium One are
highly corrupt deals.
Of course a deep state warrior would react by dragging these up, but probably just ending up
in a stalemate of accusations.
Trump stuck to his message - that working people have been screwed by the Dems and that he
would listen. It worked. It will work again, all this Dem fuss just means no one will bother
to ask what Trump has actually done for the working man.
Had Trump just asked about crowdstike, or corruption in general, or even the 2016
elections, he would have been in the clear but how is U.S. national security advanced by
specifically bringing in the Bidens?
Had Trump inquired about the Biden's after a Biden loss in the primary or the general
election was over, again, he would have been in the clear. But by asking about him prior to
these elections Trump used the Executive Branch to gain advantage over a political opponent.
This is what we call abuse of power.
Will he be removed from office, no, but it will be an extremely destructive fight in the
U.S. We deserve it. The trouble we have visited on others is now returning to us. We are
color revolutioning ourselves.
I titled this Götterdämmerung to signify how we in the U.S. are destroying each
other. In www.realclearpolitics.com I have never seen articles this contentious, even in the
Trump era.
Trump himself gave a solo press conference in New York, and he specifically called attention
to a CNN report from May
2019, which described how Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy
pushed Ukraine's top prosecutor not to close four investigations perceived as critical to
then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe and made it appear as if US aid to Ukraine
was at stake.
"In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building [democratic]
institutions despite ongoing military, economic, and political pressure from Moscow. We have
supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to
have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump."
"Senator Chris Murphy literally threatened the president of Ukraine that if he doesn't do
things right, they won't have Democrat support in Congress," Trump added.
This was referring to a report by the Hill:
"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American
politics," Murphy said,
according to The Hill . "I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the
President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would
gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and
Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them."
He finished his press conference by saying that Nancy Pelosi was no longer Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
Prior to the solo press conference, Trump and Zelensky met and sat at an awkward press
conference for approximately 15 minutes. He finished his press conference by saying that Nancy
Pelosi was no longer Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Prior to the solo press conference, Trump and Zelensky met and sat at an awkward press
conference for approximately 15 minutes.
Asked directly if he felt any pressure from Trump to investigate Biden, Zelensky hedged.
"I think you read everything. I think you read text," he said. "I -- I'm sorry, I don't want
to be involved in Democratic, open, elections -- elections of U.S.A. No, you heard. We had I
think good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. So, I think, and you read
it, that nobody pushed. Pushed me."
Trump then added: "In other words: no pressure."
Later, he was asked if he wanted Zelensky to start an investigation into Biden, he alleged
the following:
"I want him to do whatever he can," Trump said of Zelensky. "Biden's son walks out of
Ukraine with millions and millions of dollars," Trump said. "I think it's a horrible thing, a
horrible thing."
During the conversation, Trump also urged Zelensky that he should resolve things with
Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump commended Zelensky for making "a lot of progress with
Russia," adding, it "would be nice to end that whole disaster."
Essentially, Zelensky, due to his non-existent political experience has landed himself in
the hottest of waters and now has no way to come out unscathed, with the scandal promising to
get much worse, before fading into oblivion.
Probably, one of the main concerns of Zelenksy is that in a fierce attempt to please Trump
he mocked EU leaders:
TRUMP: Well it's very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We
spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and
they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they
do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was
speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the
European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the
United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal
necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been
very very good to Ukraine.
ZELENSKY: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only. 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell
you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked
with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on
the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as
much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European
Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger
partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United
States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we
are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you
for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the
next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for
defense purposes.
It's interesting how Zelensky would explain this behaviour to Germany and France.
How much did their bank balances benefit from work in Ukraine? Or their childrens/step
childrens bank accounts?
Why do US politicians always go for the route that takes out the most civilians?
Whether it be, Biden and orders over in Ukraine, or Trump and orders over in Syria, why
is it always the civilians that they go after?
Joe Biden and Ukraine: A Quick Reminder
September 26, 2019Stalker Zone
...A quick reminder of what Joe Biden did during the collective West's 2014 coup in
Kiev
Biden insisted on capturing governmental and administrative buildings in the most violent
way, preferably with victims. In order to do this, there had to already be some
"symbolic" deaths. He cooked up and coordinated a scenario with other foreign embassies.
In addition, Maidan was dying and it needed extra fuel in order to remain alive. The
scenario involved "protestors" being shot by snipers. Biden's guys (Parubiy, Pashinsky,
Parasyuk) organised the massacre...
One interesting note not mentioned in the article was Zelensky's reaction when Trump
spoke badly about the US ambassador in Ukraine that he fired. Zelensky answered that he
was glad too as she was a Poroshenko supporter who didn't like him.
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was Porky's little pal, and a tool for the neocons,
Hillary and Democrat Party. She would have went berserk about Ukraine reopening an
investigation if she were still ambassador. Good riddance.
In the very first meeting she had with the (then new) Ukraine Prosecutor General
Lutsenko in 2016, she gave a list of Ukrainians whom he was NOT allowed to prosecute. If
he didn't obey, then his office was not going to get $4.4 million in assistance already
allocated from the US in 2014. The 'already allocated' part is important - the US Embassy
in Ukraine intercepted the money and illegally withheld it as a kind of bribe for the
Ukraine General Prosecutor's office to 'obey' the US Democrats demands. Who is it that
always accuses you of something they are guilty of?
Lutsenko, to his credit, told her to f'k off. Porky backed her , the US
Ambassador, not his own Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko. Everyone though Lutsenko
was nuts to piss of Porky at the time. But then Ukraine elected a comedian as president
and threw Porky's fat ass out of office. You just can't make this stuff up!
Oh, and f'ck Giuliani. Unfortunate that that slimeball is involved at all. But
anything that will expose the Democrat's organized crime and treason, I guess...
Trump should fire Rudy Guiliani, not let him go on talk shows, advertising that you
are using your Exec power to go after political opponents is beyond stupid, a lawyer
should no better. Biden isn't the only one who has lost his fast ball.
Yeah, I fealt sorry for Zelensky, it was obvious he had his beggars ball out. I
wouldn't want that call to be made public either but he's in a tight spot, he doesn't
have any cards to play. What is this obsession w/Javelin missiles, how many tank attacks
has Ukraine had to repel, I'd say about 0.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a meeting Wednesday with President Donald
Trump that "nobody pushed me" to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. Speaking at a
bilateral meeting at the United Nations in New York, Zelensky said the phone call he had with
Trump in July, where Trump asked him to look into the former vice president and his son,
Hunter, was "normal." Trump repeated that there was "no pressure" on Zelensky but added that
the Ukrainian leader should do "whatever he can do in terms of corruption." Trump added,
without evidence, that the money Hunter Biden made while a board member of a Ukrainian company
constitutes corruption. The U.S. president also added, again with no evidence, that he believes
Hillary Clinton's emails that were deleted from her server could be in Ukraine. He also
defended his decision to involve his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in the requests he made to
Ukraine. Guiliani does not have an official job at the White House.
Ukrainegate could be damaging to the Democrats as there is
evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager.
Notable quotes:
"... With the “Russiagate” hoax proving to be the “most fraudulent political scandal in American history,” as Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen puts it, now we have emerging an alternative – “Ukrainegate”. ..."
"... Turns out now that Trump's telephone liaison was not with Putin, but rather Ukraine's Zelensky. And the anti-Trump politicos and media are getting all fired up with "Ukrainegate" -- as a replacement for the non-entity Russiagate. ..."
"... despite the obsession with trying to impeach Trump, the renewed focus on Ukraine raises legitimate and serious questions about the past dealings of Joe Biden. ..."
"... Potentially, Joe Biden, the current top Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidency, could see his chances unraveling if "Ukrainegate" is pushed further. The dilemma for his supporters among the political establishment is that the more they try to beat up on Trump over his alleged horse-trading with Ukraine, the more the heat can be turned by him on Biden over allegations of graft and abuse of office to further his family's business interests. ..."
"... "There is enough smoke here," Graham added. "Was there a relationship between the vice president's family and the Ukraine business world that was inappropriate? I don't know. Somebody other than me needs to look at it and I don't trust the media to get to the bottom of it." ..."
"... Ukrainegate could turn out to be even far more damaging to the Democrats. Because there is evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. ..."
With the “Russiagate” hoax proving to be the “most fraudulent
political scandal in American history,” as Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen puts it, now we
have emerging an alternative – “Ukrainegate”.
... ... ...
Democratic political opponents and the anti-Trump liberal media are renewing
demands for his impeachment. They are adamant that he has now crossed a clear red line of
criminality by seeking a foreign power to interfere in US elections by damaging a presidential
rival.
For his part, Trump
denies his conversations with the Ukrainian president were improper. He said he phoned
Zelensky back in July to mainly congratulate him on his recent election. Trump does however
admit that he mentioned Biden's name to Zelensky in the context of Ukraine's notorious culture
of business corruption. The American leader maintains that Joe Biden should be investigated for
possible conflict of interest and abusing the office of vice president back in 2016 in order to
enhance the business affairs of his son, Hunter.
Trump's phone call to Ukraine hit the news last week when a US intelligence officer turned
whistleblower to allege that the president was overheard in a conversation inappropriately
making "a promise to a foreign leader". The identity of the foreign leader was not disclosed.
But immediately, the anti-Trump US media began speculating that it was Russian President
Vladimir Putin. The keenness to point fingers at Putin showed that the Russiagate fever is
still virulent in the US political establishment, even though the long-running narrative
alleging Russian interference or collusion collapsed earlier this year when the two-year Robert
Mueller "Russia investigation" floundered into oblivion for lack of evidence.
Turns out now that Trump's telephone liaison was not with Putin, but rather Ukraine's
Zelensky. And the anti-Trump politicos and media are getting all fired up with "Ukrainegate" --
as a replacement for the non-entity Russiagate.
Trouble is that this alternative conspiracy could backfire badly for Trump's enemies.
Because, despite the obsession with trying to impeach Trump, the renewed focus on
Ukraine raises legitimate and serious questions about the past dealings of Joe Biden.
In March 2014, Biden's son Hunter was
slung out of the Navy Reserve for his cocaine habit. Then a month later, the younger Biden
ends up on the executive board of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. This was all
only weeks after the Obama administration and European allies had backed an illegal coup in
Kiev against the elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Vice President Joe Biden was the White House's point man to Ukraine, supporting the new
regime in Kiev by organizing financial and military aid. Biden even boasted how he personally
warned Yanukovych that the game was up and that he better step down during the tumultuous
CIA-backed street violence in Kiev during February 2014. "He was a dollar short and a day
late," quipped Biden about the ill-fated president.
The appointment of Biden's washed-up son to a plum job in Ukraine should have merited
intense US media scrutiny and investigation. But it didn't. One can only imagine their reaction
if, say, it had been Trump and one of his sons involved.
Moreover, in 2016, when Ukraine's Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was conducting a probe
into allegations of corruption and sleaze at the gas company Burisma, among other businesses,
it was Vice President Joe Biden who intervened in May 2016 to call for the state lawyer to be
sacked. Biden threatened to withhold a $1 billion financial loan from Washington if the
prosecutor was not axed. He duly was in short order and the probe into Burisma was dropped.
Potentially, Joe Biden, the current top Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidency,
could see his chances unraveling if "Ukrainegate" is pushed further. The dilemma for his
supporters among the political establishment is that the more they try to beat up on Trump over
his alleged horse-trading with Ukraine, the more the heat can be turned by him on Biden over
allegations of graft and abuse of office to further his family's business interests.
Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is this week
calling for an investigation into Biden's conduct in Ukraine.
"Joe Biden said everybody's looked at this and found nothing. Who is everybody? Nobody has
looked at the Ukraine and the Bidens," Mr. Graham told Fox News.
"There is enough smoke here," Graham added. "Was there a relationship between the vice
president's family and the Ukraine business world that was
inappropriate? I don't know. Somebody other than me needs to look at it and I don't trust the
media to get to the bottom of it."
Ukrainegate could turn out to be even far more damaging to the Democrats. Because there is
evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul
Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort is facing jail time for fraud and tax
offenses unearthed by the Mueller probe. Mueller did not find any link between Manafort and a
"Kremlin influence campaign", as was speculated. However, because Manafort did work previously
as a political manager for the ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovcyh, he was seen as a
liability for Trump. Was Russiagate always Ukrainegate all along?
Apart from Biden's potential personal conflict of interests in Ukraine, the country may turn
out to be the key to where the whole Russiagate fiasco was first dreamt up by Democrats, Kiev
regime operatives and US intelligence enemies of Trump.
Ukrainegate has a lot more political skeletons to tumble from the wardrobe. Those skeletons
may bury Democrats and their liberal media-intelligence backers , rather than Trump.
"... Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy . ..."
"... And sure enough, if The New York Times is to be believed, the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point , according to three people familiar with his identity. The man has since returned to the C.I.A. , the people said. ..."
"... Trump's WH staff is a sh##show. One or more of them leaked. Trump has "spies" everywhere. Even Trump's darling, Israel, spies on him with impunity. ..."
"... Trump's only ask was of the Crowdstrike 2016 server, it was the Ukraine Prez that brought up Rudy to look at Biden. Would never know from the morons that write about stuff they never actually read. ..."
"... "BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine. " ..."
"... Saw some videos on Twitter today of sports bars breaking out into chants yesterday when Pelosi made her hostage-video announcement about the impeachment inquiry. They have the public eating out of their hand. They think this is sports. Nation of selfie-taking monkeys. Begging to be enslaved. ..."
"... Trump will have to act in ways he is not prepared for as a celebrity and real estate showman. He has to make a little bit of history, the type they write about 250 years later. Fate is fickle. His old life is gone forever. His new one requires him to act decisively and with ruthlessness, as Machiavelli advises. ..."
Soon after the Ukraine-gate "whistleblower" complaint was made public, questions about the source's
knowledge and background began to rise,
as one former CIA officer noted
very specifically:
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help.
I
know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the
intel oversight committees.
Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee
members?
My view is that
this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come
from a typical whistleblower.
Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups
opposed to the president involved?
This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to
come
because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign
officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.
Worst of all,
this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line
into policy
.
And sure enough,
if The New York Times
is to be believed,
the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was
detailed to work at the White House at one point
, according to three people familiar with his
identity. The man has
since returned to the C.I.A.
, the people said.
The NYTimes,
of course, puts its spin on the news, claiming that the whistle-blower's expertise will likely add to
lawmakers' confidence about the merits of his complaint. However, given the current state of affairs,
we suspect it will simply remind a deeply divided nation of the
bias and prejudice that exists
behind the President's back.
As Chuck Schumer once warned Trump:
"Let me tell you:
You take on the intelligence community - they have six ways from
Sunday at getting back at you
... So, even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this."
Since when do people not actually read the memo, rather spin made up
stuff? Trump's only ask was of the Crowdstrike 2016 server, it was
the Ukraine Prez that brought up Rudy to look at Biden. Would never
know from the morons that write about stuff they never actually read.
"BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just
been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and
Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine.
"
How stupid is the American public -- we have the CIA in what is
probably step 6 of a planned-9 or 10-step process to literally
overthrow a president -- and where is everyone? Taking the side of
the goddamn CIA! Holllly Christ we are fucked.
Saw some videos on
Twitter today of sports bars breaking out into chants yesterday when
Pelosi made her hostage-video announcement about the impeachment
inquiry. They have the public eating out of their hand. They think
this is sports. Nation of selfie-taking monkeys. Begging to be
enslaved.
Trump will have to act in ways he is not prepared for as a
celebrity and real estate showman. He has to make a little bit of
history, the type they write about 250 years later. Fate is fickle.
His old life is gone forever. His new one requires him to act
decisively and with ruthlessness, as Machiavelli advises.
If he refrains from acting, he will likely suffer unimaginably.
These people are demons. I trust he knows it.
The key question here is: Is Nancy Pelosi a CIA controlled politician who followed Breenan instruction to open the second stage
of the color revolution against Trump. Her long service in House Intelligence Committee suggest that this is a possibility.
Nancy Pelosi just took the biggest gamble of her entire political career. If she is ultimately successful, she will be remembered
as the woman that removed Donald Trump from the White House, and Democrats will treat her like a hero for the rest of her life. But
if she fails and Trump wins in 2020, the backlash that she created when she tried to impeach Trump is likely to be blamed, and she
could potentially lose her leadership role in the House. Of course at that point she probably wouldn't want to remain in the House
much longer, and she would be hated by many Democrats for the rest of her life for subjecting them to four more years of Trump. So
it really is all on the line for Nancy Pelosi, and she never should have gone down this road if she wasn't absolutely certain that
she could deliver.
And at this point, most Americans don't want impeachment proceedings to happen. For example, just check out what a Politico/Morning
Consult poll just found
In the poll -- conducted Friday through Sunday, as stories circled about Trump allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate
former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the Democratic candidates hoping to oust him -- 36 percent of respondents said they believe
Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump in response to the
Ukraine controversy. If it's found that Trump did use his presidential power to force a foreign leader to help take down a political
rival, 55 percent of U.S. adults said they would support removing him from office, according to a recent YouGov survey.
Forty-four percent of those polled said they'd "strongly support" removing Trump if the allegations are true, while another
11 percent said they'd "somewhat support" it.
But as it stands right now, on the national level this is a very unpopular decision by Pelosi, and it could potentially hurt Democrats
among key blocs of voters
Worse yet, impeachment isn't selling where Democrats made their best gains in the midterms. A majority of suburban respondents
oppose starting the impeachment process (35 percent/50 percent), with a wider gap among rural respondents (27/59), while urban
voters are more ambivalent than one might guess (47/35). Impeachment trails by double digits in the South (33/53), Midwest, (36/48),
and even in the Democrat-friendly Northeast (37/48).
Another reason why this is potentially a giant mistake by Nancy Pelosi is the fact that all of this focus on Ukraine is almost
certainly going to damage one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination.
All of a sudden, everyone is talking about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Ukraine. A lot of voters are going to look into what happened,
and they are not going to be pleased. And this comes at a time when Elizabeth Warren is surging in the polls, and real votes will
start to be cast in just a few months.
Up until recently, the Biden campaign had successfully kept the focus off Hunter Biden and Ukraine , and Joe was widely considered
to be the heavy favorite to win the nomination.
But now everything could change thanks to Nancy Pelosi.
And what if this push toward impeachment is not successful? Trump's base is going to be extremely fired up by all of the political
drama over the next several months, and if Trump survives it is going to be a huge boost for his campaign.
All of the recent polls indicated that a Democrat was likely to win in 2020, and there was a very good chance that the Democrats
were going to take the Senate too, but now this could dramatically shift public opinion and change everything.
Nancy Pelosi is rolling the dice, and if she fails it is going to be absolutely disastrous for the Democratic Party. The following
is how
Matthew Walther summarized the situation that she is facing
Pelosi knows this will not be popular. She knows more than that. She knows that it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party,
that it will inflame the president's base and inspire even his most lukewarm supporters with a sense of outrage. She knows that
in states like Michigan, upon which her party's chances in 2020 will depend, the question of impeachment does not poll well. She
knows, further, that Joe Biden will not be able to spend the next 14 or so months refusing to answer questions about the activities
of his son, Hunter, in Ukraine, and that increased scrutiny of the vice president's record in office will not rebound to his credit.
She and her fellow Democratic leaders had better hope that someone like Elizabeth Warren manages to steal the nomination away
from him before this defines his candidacy the way that Hillary Clinton's emails and paid speechmaking did during and after the
2016 primaries.
And it isn't going to be easy for Pelosi to be successful, because she is going to need 67 votes in the Senate to convict Trump,
and right now Democrats only hold 47 seats.
In the end, this is yet another example that proves that America's political system is deeply broken, and we desperately need
a seismic change .
Because no matter what the end result is, this entire episode is going to be a giant stain in the history books.
If future generations of Americans get the chance, they will look back on this entire saga with disgust.
And if our founders could see us today, they would be rolling over in their graves, because this is not what they intended.
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... How deep where these involvements? Are there Ukrainian sources in the debunked Steele dossier about Trump? ..."
"... Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian interference in the election was a big issue. Why is Ukrainian interference not of interest? ..."
"... Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer? ..."
It alleges what was publicly known even before the phone call between Trump and the
Ukrainian President Zelensky was published.
During the then still ongoing Mueller investigation Rudi Giuliani, as a private lawyer for
President Trump, tried to find exculpating information which he hoped would debunk the
allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia.
It was known that there had been involvement
of Ukraine related people as well as of Ukrainian officials in Russiagate and the election
campaigns:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back
away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on
Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
How deep where these involvements? Are there Ukrainian sources in the debunked Steele
dossier about Trump?
There was also the mysterious fact that just three weeks after the U.S. managed 2014 coup
in Ukraine, in which Joe Biden as then U.S. vice-president was heavily involved, Joe Biden's
son Hunter started to receive more that $50,000 per month for being on the board of a
Ukrainian gas company even though he had no knowledge of the gas business or the Ukraine.
In April the then Prosecutor General of the Ukraine Lutsenko was quoted in The
Hill mentioning the above allegations.
Giuliani hoped that the Ukraine would investigate both issues and would find facts that
might help to exculpate Trump. He openly spoke about this in several TV appearances and
interviews
since at least March 2019.
On July 24 the Mueller investigation into Russiagate closed. On July 25 Trump had a phone
call with Zelensky in which Trump mildly pressed for further Ukrainian investigations into
both issues, the Ukrainian involvement in Russigate and the U.S. election and the case of
Hunter Biden. Zelensky responded that he would so. He later said that he found the telephone
call "normal".
The whistleblower, presumably someone of medium to higher rank in the CIA, is concerned
that Trump's request to Zelensky is a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of
law or Executive Order" that justify his action.
The Democrats in Congress will make similar claims. But there are reasons to see the issue
completely differently.
Attorney General Barr has opened an investigation into the roots of the debunked
Russiagate claims. An investigation on the ground in the Ukraine could surely help to find
evidence proving or disproving Ukrainian involvement in it.
Biden had publicly bragged to have blackmailed the then Ukrainian President Poroshenko
into firing the then Prosecutor General of the Ukraine Shokin. Shokin had at that time an
open case against the owner of the Ukrainian company Biden's son worked for. Biden's
intervention smells of corruption or at least undue interference by a U.S. official for
personal reasons.
Trump can reasonable argue that investigations in the Ukraine into both issues are in the
U.S. public interest.
Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the
debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian
interference in the election was a big issue. Why is Ukrainian interference not of
interest?
Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in
Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?
Has the U.S. public an interest in knowing the answers to these questions?
If it has such interest why shouldn't the president concern himself with pushing the
Ukrainian president to investigate the issues? Kettle meet pot.
The phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom, used to accuse another
speaker of hypocrisy, in that the speaker disparages the subject for a fault or negative
behavior that could equally be applied to him or her, though there is an alternative
interpretation. In former times cast iron pots and kettles were quickly blackened from the
soot of the fire. The pot would then be hypocritical to insult the kettle's colour, since
both are black with soot. When used in debate, the "pot calling the kettle black" may be
illogical, as it is a form of the argument ad hominem.
I firmly believe that the public face of those who rule the US is a unipolar political party
that I call the Kayfabe Party.
The "Ukrainian Affair" is yet another chapter in the never-ending staged Presnitial Match
where the "limited hang-out" Biden Clan makes another move towards the "heel" Trump's 2020
"victory" while shielding the Dems "babyface" 2024 wannabe's.
Sorry for all the "Air Quotes", but that's what kayfabe is all about.
Enrico Malatesta , Sep 26 2019 15:12 utc |
3Jackrabbit , Sep 26 2019
15:52 utc |
4
b:
Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine?
Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?
Did Trump appoint family members to government positions? Did Trump block attempts to
understand what conflicts of interest he may have by not releasing his tax returns as all
candidates for high office did previously? Did Trump chose Pence (McCain's guy), Bolton
(neocon guy), Haspel (Brennan's gal), Barr (Bush's guy and Mueller's friend) and others as
part of a 'deal' with the Deep State to win the 2016 Presidential election? Was Trump the
nationalist that Kissinger called for in his 2014 WSJ Op-Ed in which he called for MAGA as a
strategy for meeting the challenge from Russia and China?
Is Biden just another Deep State political operative that is playing a part? Another
"flawed candidate" (like Hillary) for MAGA Trump to trounce?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Is this latest farce just a nothing-burger distraction from the fact that we are on the
brink of war?
Just think, another year of this still to come. The final shootout between Trump and his
enemies over who is the bigger crook and traitor; and lucky Ukraine the mark in both cases.
Wow. Zelenski looked like he swallowed a bug when Trump started running his big mouth.
"... Agents, officers and analysts from the military, intelligence and law enforcement communities routinely work at the White House. Often, they work on the National Security Council or help manage secure communications, like calls between the president and foreign leaders. ..."
"... The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump's conduct "in the course of official interagency business," according to the complaint, which was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by senior Ukrainian officials. ..."
"... He also obliquely threatened the whistle-blower or his sources with punishment. "I want to know who's the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that's close to a spy," Mr. Trump told staff members from the United States Mission to the United Nations before an event there. ..."
"... "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?" he added. "We used to handle it a little differently than we do now." ..."
Whistle-Blower Is a CIA Officer Who Was Detailed
to the White House https://nyti.ms/2ltzVye
NYT - Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt
and Julian E. Barnes - September 26
WASHINGTON -- The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for
his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was
detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his
identity.
The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him.
His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he
was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a
sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.
The whistle-blower's expertise will likely add to lawmakers' confidence about the merits
of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned
about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President
Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the
president's mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.
Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said
that publishing information about him was dangerous.
"Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is
deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm's way," said Andrew
Bakaj, his lead counsel. "The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity."
The C.I.A. referred questions to the inspector general for the intelligence agencies. A
spokeswoman for the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, said that
protecting the whistle-blower was his office's highest priority. "We must protect those who
demonstrate the courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the
workplace," Mr. Maguire said at a hearing on Thursday, adding that he did not know the
whistle-blower's identity.
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times was right to
publish information about the whistle-blower. "The role of the whistle-blower, including his
credibility and his place in the government, is essential to understanding one of the most
important issues facing the country -- whether the president of the United States abused
power and whether the White House covered it up."
Agents, officers and analysts from the military, intelligence and law enforcement
communities routinely work at the White House. Often, they work on the National Security
Council or help manage secure communications, like calls between the president and foreign
leaders.
The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign
leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump's
conduct "in the course of official interagency business," according to the complaint, which
was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by
senior Ukrainian officials.
Officials regularly shared information to "inform policymaking and analysis," the
complaint said. The complaint raises the prospect that the whistle-blower was not detailed to
the White House either during the events in question or when he learned about them. Mr. Trump took aim at the whistle-blower's credibility on Thursday, attempting to dismiss
his revelations because they were secondhand.
He also obliquely threatened the whistle-blower or his sources with punishment. "I want to
know who's the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that's close to a
spy," Mr. Trump told staff members from the United States Mission to the United Nations
before an event there.
"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason,
right?" he added. "We used to handle it a little differently than we do now."
On the call with Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Trump asked him to investigate unsubstantiated
allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son and
other matters he saw as potentially beneficial to him politically.
Mr. Trump cajoled Mr. Zelensky to coordinate with Attorney General William P. Barr and the
president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to a reconstituted transcript of
the call that the White House released on Wednesday. Mr. Zelensky, who was elected in April,
agreed to help Mr. Trump. While Ukrainian prosecutors have moved to pursue an inquiry of an
oligarch whose company paid Mr. Biden's son Hunter, they did not allege wrongdoing by the
Bidens.
The call with Mr. Zelensky was originally thought to be a routine matter, the complaint
said, and the White House did not restrict it, meaning a number of officials and note takers
listened.
But the whistle-blower said that afterward, White House officials "intervened to 'lock
down' all records of the phone call," putting them in a highly classified system meant for
discussing covert actions. One White House official called that an abuse because the
transcript contained no classified material.
Notes and rough transcripts of White House calls are typically stored on a computer system
that allows senior officials in different departments and agencies to access them, to better
coordinate policy.
Some White House colleagues told the whistle-blower that they were concerned they had
witnessed "the president abuse his office for personal gain," according to the complaint.
...
The complaint looks like a "lawyer-assisted document." Produced by a team, not by a single
person. It clearly was carefully designed to inflict maximum damage to replace Russiagate
hysteria with a new one and put Trump on the defensive.
Which was fully achieved. Pelosi decision is also a huge pressure point even when actual
impeachment is above her political capabilities.
But it definitely replaces the pressure of Mueller/Weissmann commission on Trump with an
equal or higher pressure, and may even surpass in the effectiveness Andrew Weissmann witch
hunt.
Now "full of Schiff" members of House have a new bone to chew. They can drag Trump thru
the mud for the next six months, hoping that this will turn the election their way.
Which might well be a wrong assumption, as it cemented Trump coalition and outraged people
who were ready to abandon Trump, so the percentage of former Trump supporters who would stay
home, but now will go to the voting booth might be an unpleasant surprise for neoliberal
Democrats.
Previously Trump chances were IMHO not that great as he proved to be a very weak,
impulsive President, one-trick pony who assumes that bullying is the diplomacy and
negotiating strategy all-in-one, who accepted rabid neocons like Bolton into his
administration, who was pandering to Netanyahu, and who he betrayed most of his election
promises. Without Russiagate2 he can run only on inertia and stock market value, which is not
much. So I would consider the possibility the Trump welcomes this impeachment process as his
last chance. He might well anticipate difficulties competing against Warren; who would beat
him on domestic policy for at least half of Trump base, and she has less baggage in foreign
policy, so she can attract anti-war independents who in 2016 voted for Trump).
In any case, the person who signed it might well be just a pre-selected "placeholder" for
information which was leaked by other people, much like Steele relations with Fusion GPS,
when it is unclear whether Steele supplied information to them or vice versa, or
CIA-connected Nelly Ohr provided material to Steele so that he returned it as his own,
supposedly obtained from a "respectable foreign source", whitewashing the real source.
The scenario of operation really looks like the second stage of the "palace coup" run by
Brennan faction in CIA and other intelligence agencies (surviving members of McCabe faction
in FBI.) Its start with some equivalent of Steele dossier produced by a supposedly
"respectable source" also closely resembles Russiagate with neoliberal MSM driving the
hysteria even before facts were known.
That's why I would call this scandal Russiagate2, not Ukraine-gate. As Proverbs 16:4 puts
it, "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of
evil."
"... Of note, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) began the hearing with a completely fabricated account of a July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - the actual transcript of which was released on Wednesday, revealing Trump urging - not threatening or pressuring - Zelelsky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. ..."
"... In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. - The Hill ..."
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
Moments
after an anonymous whistleblower complaint against President Trump was released, acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph
Maguire is offering public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss the matter.
Of note, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) began the hearing with a completely fabricated account of a July 25 call between President
Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - the actual transcript of which was released on Wednesday, revealing Trump urging
- not threatening or pressuring - Zelelsky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
Last year, Biden openly bragged about threatening to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy as Vice President if they didn't fire their
top prosecutor , Viktor Shokin - who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas firm whose board Hunter
Biden sat on , collecting $50,000 per month.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired . And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on
Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
"... Fleitz then writes that "that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower," adding " Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? " ..."
"... This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls. ..."
"... The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members? ..."
"... What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint? ..."
"... My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? ..."
"... This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials. ..."
In light of Thursday's public release of a 'whistleblower' complaint, who was "not a witness to most of hte events described"
in their allegation that President Trump abused his office to request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's
dealings in the country, former CIA analyst and National Security Council (NSC) official Fred Fleitz has provided his take on the
whole thing via Twitter .
Notably, Fleitz - CEO of the Center for Security Policy - points out that " The way this complaint was written suggested the author
had a lot of help, " adding "I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel
oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members? "
Fleitz then writes that "that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower,"
adding " Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? "
Read the thread below (emphasis ours):
As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are
my thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which was just released. . .
intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential
phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction
over these calls.
It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached . This official was not on this
call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee
staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel
committee members?
It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee
dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?
My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were
other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?
This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to
be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White
House.
Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy . This violates a core
responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.
This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers
are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials.
"... Two weeks later, the Financial Times did a story about Ukraine's takedown of Manafort, including quotes from Leshchenko and Western analysts. "The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's biggest ally," it began, "has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election." ..."
"... Reading the article in 2019, after three years of nonstop coverage about overseas meddling in US democracy, is stunning. Here is an established Western outlet calmly discussing successful foreign influence of an American presidential campaign as a neat little coup, a bit of gutsy international derring-do. ..."
"... "My desire to expose Manafort's doings was motivated by the desire for justice," wrote Leschenko in a recent Washington Post op-ed. "Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden, nor John Podesta, nor George Soros asked me to publish the information from the black ledger." ..."
Vulnerabilities in US election security need attention, and Ukraine's 2016 impact could
be instructive.
... ... ...
Ukraine's role in the 2016 race is undeniable: In the summer of 2016, Kiev's release of the
so-called "black ledger" resulted in Manafort's ouster from the Trump campaign. The actions of
foreign actors -- however well-intentioned -- directly impacted an American election.
One would imagine Washington media and lawmakers -- who spent three years combing through
every aspect of Moscow's interference in our election -- might direct similar attention to
Kiev's impact. Yet the Ukrainian angle barely made headlines.
If we want to get serious about safeguarding our electoral process from all foreign actors,
not just Moscow-based ones, it's time to examine Ukraine as well.
On August 14, 2016, The New York Times published a bombshell
about what would become known as the "black ledger" -- a handwritten document alleging millions
of off-the-books payments to Manafort by the Party of Regions, led by his former client Viktor
Yanukovych, the ousted pro-Russian president of Ukraine. The Times received the ledger
from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), an independent government
agency.
The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as head of Trump's campaign.
The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that Manafort -- and therefore
Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin.
Four days later, the Times ran a
follow-up story, based on more details released by NABU and publicity by Serhei Leshchenko,
a member of the Ukrainian parliament, who told the Times he'd studied the ledger. The
next day, Manafort resigned from Trump's campaign.
Two weeks later, the Financial Times did a story about Ukraine's
takedown of Manafort, including quotes from Leshchenko and Western analysts. "The prospect of
Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's
biggest ally," it began, "has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political
leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however
indirectly, in a US election."
"Mr Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue their efforts to
prevent a candidate from reaching the summit of American political power," the story went
on.
Reading the article in 2019, after three years of nonstop coverage about overseas meddling
in US democracy, is stunning. Here is an established Western outlet calmly discussing
successful foreign influence of an American presidential campaign as a neat little coup, a bit
of gutsy international derring-do.
Calling the intervention "indirect" is a bit generous, as well. Manafort was ousted based on
handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere without NABU and
Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it gets.
Of course, all this occurred in August of 2016, when the prospect of a Trump presidency was
seen as inconceivable. After Trump's election,
Leshchenko and
NABU frantically denied their intent to damage the Trump campaign, claiming the ledger was
publicized solely because of their concern to stamp out corruption and had nothing to do with
US politics.
"My desire to expose Manafort's doings was motivated by the desire for justice,"
wrote Leschenko in a recent Washington Post op-ed. "Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe
Biden, nor John Podesta, nor George Soros asked me to publish the information from the black
ledger."
Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort's corruption, and the man's
subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose. But Ukraine's efforts also
happened to coincide with -- and have an immediate impact on -- an American campaign. And yet,
despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western
media, we've had almost no debate about its implications.
To understand just how astounding that is, simply imagine if the situation were reversed.
Imagine the Financial Times ran a story about a Russian government bureau and lawmaker
leaking documents that directly resulted in the ouster of the Clinton campaign manager. Even if
everything exposed by Russia were true, it'd still be a major scandal.
None of this is to say we should ignore the Kremlin's election meddling or Trump's current
attempt to coerce Ukraine into investigating Biden. These are extraordinarily serious issues --
but so is Ukraine's impact in 2016.
It seems many Americans are under the mistaken assumption that the moment Trump leaves
office, things will return to normal. They won't. If anything, the 2016 election let the devil
out of the box -- other actors in other nations surely took notice of the ease with which a
handful of individuals in Ukraine were able to influence an American campaign. There will be
more of this. Some may be in good faith; some will not.
It is impossible to say we're taking foreign interference seriously until the media,
lawmakers, and political activists have an honest conversation about the new norms. And that
involves looking not only at Trump and Russia, but at Ukraine as well.
Lev Golinkin is the
author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka , Amazon's Debut of the Month
and a Barnes & Noble's Discover Great New Writers program selection. Golinkin, a graduate
of Boston College, came to the United States as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city
of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in 1990. His op-eds and essays on the Ukraine crisis have
appeared in The New York Times , the Los Angeles Times , The Boston Globe
, and Time.com , among others.
"... Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions." ..."
"... The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's president. ' ..."
'US President Donald Trump has moved to suspend Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's
senior officials, relatives, and others who receive financial benefits from entering into
the US in Wednesday press release from the White House.
Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House
Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants
of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions."
The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's
president. '
"... With an impeachment moving through the House, you can either kiss any and all legislation and cooperation goodbye, or Speaker Pelosi will try to move something through "to inoculate vulnerable House Democrats from the 'Do Nothing' talking-point," Cowen analyst Chris Kruger wrote in a note Tuesday. ..."
"... Two prime examples could be the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement for North American trade or a drug pricing bill that could get presidential support. Either of those options, however, do not seem very likely with an impeachment moving forward ." ..."
"... But look, that would mean that the entire Democrat nomenklatura plus their assets in the press lost their minds about a single-source story from the intelligence community where a whistleblower was operating on hearsay. I don't see how that can be. ..."
"... Remember back in April when the only thing the Dems wanted was an unredacted version of the Mueller report? Then they heard Mueller testify ..."
" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally announced Tuesday that the House will begin an
impeachment inquiry into whistleblower charges that Trump tried to pressure Ukraine's
president into investigating presidential contender Joe Biden and his son. That announcement
came less than a week after Pelosi and other top Democrats unveiled a proposal that would
allow the government to negotiate with drugmakers on the prices of at least 25 of the most
expensive drugs in Medicare and the private market in an attempt to lower prescription-drug
prices.
With an impeachment moving through the House, you can either kiss any and all legislation
and cooperation goodbye, or Speaker Pelosi will try to move something through "to inoculate
vulnerable House Democrats from the 'Do Nothing' talking-point," Cowen analyst Chris Kruger
wrote in a note Tuesday.
Two prime examples could be the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement for North American trade or a
drug pricing bill that could get presidential support. Either of those options, however, do
not seem very likely with an impeachment moving forward ."
But look, that would mean that the entire Democrat nomenklatura plus their assets in the
press lost their minds about a single-source story from the intelligence community where a
whistleblower was operating on hearsay. I don't see how that can be.
To be fair, the WSJ IIRC story looked an awful lot like a quid pro quo. So much will
depend on the transcript. If it really is a full transcript (which, interestingly, the
whistleblower would not know).
Once this happened, msnbs started saying that the dems also want the unredacted
whistleblower complaint released, since the complaint allegedly concerns not just the single
phone call, but "multiple" incidents of "wrongdoing."
Looks like very polarized decision: to friends everything, to enemies the law. And treatment by NY of Epstein and Harvey
Weinstein supports this hypothesis.
New York state prosecutors in Manhattan have subpoenaed President Trump's
accounting firm, Mazars USA, demanding eight years of his
personal and corporate tax
returns
according to the
New
York Times
, citing "several people with knowledge on the matter" - the gold standard in
modern sources.
The subpoena was issued by the Manhattan DA's office last month following the launch of a
criminal investigation into hush-money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels (real name
Stephanie Clifford) by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen - who pleaded guilty last year to eight
charges; seven of which were unrelated to the Trump campaign, and one for breaking federal campaign
finance laws. He is currently serving a three-year prison sentence.
At issue - Democratic Manhattan D.A. Cyrus R. Vance Jr. (whose daddy was Jimmy Carter's
Secretary of State
- and who took money
from Harvey Weinstein while
declining to
prosecute
him for sexual assault -
and
who sought a
reduced sex-offender
status
for Jeffrey Epstein) wants to see if
Trump's reimbursement of Cohen violated any
laws in New York
, and whether Trump's accounting firm falsely accounted for the
reimbursements as a legal expense.
In New York, filing a false business record can be a crime.
But it becomes a felony only if prosecutors can prove that the false filing was made to
commit or conceal another crime, such as tax violations or bank fraud.
The tax returns
and other documents sought from Mazars could shed light on whether any state laws were broken
.
Such subpoenas also routinely request related documents in connection with the returns. -
New
York Times
Congressional Democrats have been hunting down Trump's tax returns for years after the
billionaire refused to do so, citing an ongoing IRS audit as well as the position that Trump
Organization competitors would then have access to industry secrets.
The president has fought back
to keep his finances under wraps, challenging the subpoenas in
federal court. He has also sued to block a New York state law, passed this year, that
authorized state officials to provide his state tax returns in response to certain congressional
inquiries. By tying up the requests in court,
Mr. Trump's team has made it diminishingly
likely that Democrats in Washington will get the chance to review them before the election next
year
. -
New
York Times
And while Trump and the Treasury Department have proven thus far successful in thwarting
Democratic lawmakers' inquiries,
it may not be as easy to fend off a subpoena in Manhattan
.
According to Mazars, they will "will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal
obligations," adding that the company was legally prohibited from commenting on its work.
If the Manhattan DA
is
able to obtain Trump's tax returns, the
Times
notes
that "the documents would be covered by secrecy rules governing grand juries, meaning they would
not become public unless they were used as evidence in a criminal case."
The
Times
does
not
note, however, that the records would likely be leaked
within 30 minutes to the
Washington Post
or similar.
State prosecutors also subpoenaed the Trump Organization in early August for records of the
payments to Daniels and Cohen's reimbursement -
a request which has been complied with
according
to the report.
"It's just harassment of the president, his family and his business, using subpoenas as
weapons," said Trump Org attorney, Marc L. Mukasey in a statement last month.
As part of its investigation, prosecutors from Mr. Vance's office visited Mr. Cohen in prison
in Otisville, N.Y., to seek assistance with their investigation, according to people briefed on
the meeting, which was first reported by CNN.
Mr. Cohen also helped arrange for American Media Inc., the publisher of The National
Enquirer, to pay Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who also said she had an affair with the
president. Prosecutors in the district attorney's office subpoenaed American Media in early
August, as well as at least one bank. -
New
York Times
Will the Democrats' gambit pay off? Or will the ongoing "witch hunts" into President Trump
backfire and turn him into a martyr?
There is no evidence that any crimes of any type has been
committed.
There is no legal grounds for a subpoena to be issued without
evidence that a crime has been committed.
Cearly, the Manhattan DA is violating the civil right of a
citizen for asking for 8 years of tax records with no indication
of a crime. Trump should sue the DA and the jutice department
should look into the DA violation of due process and legal rights
of a citizen.
Has he subpoenaed Epstein's docs? Is he going to claim tax fraud
is worse than child molestation? Why don't Trump supporters file a
class action lawsuit and RICO against this clown?
wants to see if
Trump's reimbursement of Cohen violated any
laws in New York
, and whether Trump's accounting firm falsely
accounted for the reimbursements as a legal expense. "
Love to see the Bio on the Judge that approved the Subpeona
How many people reading this think that the IRS never reviewed
Trump's tax returns?
How many people reading this think that
Obama's IRS did NOT make a special effort to go over Trump's taxes
in great detail, even as Obama's FBI and DOJ spied on Trump and
his campaign?
How many people reading this think that Obama's IRS would NOT
have charged Trump with tax evasion even if they could have?
How many people reading this think that making Trump's tax
return public is NOT an effort to twist, distort, and misinterpret
complex tax returns in an attempt to make Trump look bad as bad as
possible for taking legitimate, legal, but large tax deductions?
How many people reading this think that it is perfectly fine
for democrat leaders, such as Pelosi, Schumer, and
multimillionaire Maxine Waters NOT to have to release their tax
returns while Trump has to release his?
Why did Weinstein and Epstein get such special treatment?
Both did get the same treatment- in escaping from justice. Oh,
you mean not producing tax returns? No one is demanding them, for
one plus they are not public servants. All government officials
should submit their tax returns to ensure they are not compromised
by those who have access to them.
What democracy they are talking about? Democracy for whom? This Harvard political prostitutes are talking about democracy for oligarchs
which was the nest result of EuroMaydan and the ability of Western companies to buy assets for pennies on the dollar without the control
of national government like happen in xUSSR space after dissolution of the USSR, which in retrospect can be classified as a color revolution
too, supported by financial injection, logistical support and propaganda campaign in major Western MSM.
What Harvard honchos probably does not understand or does not wish to understand is that neoliberalism as a social system lost its
attraction and is in irreversible decline. The ideology of neoliberalism collapsed much like Bolsheviks' ideology. As Politician like
Joe Boden which still preach neoliberalism are widely viewed as corrupt or senile (or both) hypocrites.
The "Collective West" still demonstrates formidable intelligence agencies skills (especially the USA and GB), but the key question
is: "What they are fighting for?"
They are fighting for neoliberalism which is a lost case. Which looks like KGB successes after WWIII. They won many battles and
lost the Cold war.
Not that Bolsheviks in the USSR was healthy or vibrant. Economics was a deep stagnation, alcoholism among working class was rampant,
the standard of living of the majority of population slides each year, much like is the case with neoliberalism after, say, 1991. Hidden
unemployment in the USSR was high -- at least in high teens if not higher. Like in the USA now good jobs were almost impossible to obtain
without "extra help". Medical services while free were dismal, especially dental -- which were horrible. Hospitals were poor as church
rats as most money went to MIC. Actually, like in the USA now, MIC helped to strangulate the economy and contributed to the collapse.
It was co a corrupt and decaying , led by completely degenerated leadership. To put the person of the level of Gorbachov level of political
talent lead such a huge and complex country was an obvious suicide.
But the facts speak for themselves: what people usually get as the result of any color revolution is the typical for any county
which lost the war: dramatic drop of the standard of living due to economic rape of the country.
While far form being perfect the Chinese regime at least managed to lift the standard of living of the majority of the population
and provide employment. After regime change China will experience the same economic rape as the USSR under Yeltsin regime. So in no
way Hong Cong revolution can be viewed a progressive phenomenon despite all the warts of neoliberalism with Chenese characteristics
in mainland China (actually this is a variant of NEP that Gorbachov tried to implement in the USSR, but was to politically incompetent
to succeed)
CHENOWETH: I think it really boils down to four different things. The first is a large and diverse participation that's
sustained.
The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other
elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide
how violent the confrontation with -- and reaction to -- the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other
security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo,
and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that's a decisive factor.
The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation
in the methods they use.
The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed -- which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes
-- they don't either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw
the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they're essentially co-signing
what the regime wants -- for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they're probably going to get totally crushed.
Wai Sing-Rin @waisingrin • Aug 27
Replying to @ChrisFraser_HKU @edennnnnn_ and 2 others
Anyone who watched the lone frontliner (w translator) sees the frontliners are headed for disaster. They're fighting just
to fight with no plans nor objectives.
They see themselves as heroes protecting the HK they love. No doubt their sincerity, but there are 300 of them left.
"... So, a well-meaning Westerner suggests Gene Sharp's well-known 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action to a HKer, who politely informs him that Sharp's work is already available in Chinese ..."
"... You don't have to wait for your CIA handler to vouchsafe The Sacred Texts. Very sophisticated and tested protest tactics are all available on the Internet, if you research the media coverage of Tahrir Square, los indignados in Spain, the state capital occupations in the United States, Occupy proper, the Carré Rouge in Quebec, and many, many other examples (including the Umbrella movement organic to Hong Kong). It's not all Maidan -- which is on the Internet too, and I don't regard it was useful to forcefit all protests into that model. ..."
"... If they have factories in China now, and they are the invisible hands, I think they (and their factories) would be in trouble already, as in 'now,' and they don't have to worry about being extradited in the future. ..."
"... Me neither. That's a concern. However, there is the idea that "you taught me" that non-violence doesn't work (in 2014), "you" being the Chinese government. There is also the idea that the Mainland is no more agreement-capable than the United States," since they have no intention of adhering to the Basic Law on matters like universal suffrage . If the attitude among a great mass of the protestors is that they have nothing to lose, some sort of Masada-like scenario seems likely. ..."
"... And exactly whose interests would that serve? The interests of the students? The interests of Hong Kong generally? Answering that question will begin to take you down the rabbit hole. ..."
"... Now, it is true that "color revolution" in strong form seems to have lost some credibility, and that, if I may characterize the discourse collectively, we see a strategic retreat to formulations like "I'm sure the protestors have legitimacy," but they're still "manipulated," because, by gawd, that's what the US does. ..."
"... And then we get NGOs (been around for years) and Jimmy Lai (been around for years). Constants, that is, where the protests are a variable (which is why the heavy-breathing GrayZone post about xenohobia doesn't impress me all that much). ..."
"... So will this protest end the way Occupy ended here in "democratic" USA? One has to suspect the secessionist aim that is one of the apparent motives will not be rewarded. ..."
"... US funding and influence was quite well-attested then, for those who were paying attention. Oddly, or not, there seems to be no Victoria Nuland-equivalent for HK. One could argue, of course, that there's an invisible Nuland, but Occam's Razor eliminates that. I never followed Ukraine closely, I admit, partly because Ukraine is fabulously corrupt, and partly because (like Syria) it seemed impossible to separate fact from fiction on the ground. (The only rooting interest I have in Ukraine is their wonderful enormous airplanes.) I think for HK we have a lot more well-attested information. That's what the post is about, in fact. ..."
"... There is video of HKers using 3-person surgical tubing catapults to return to sender tear gas cannisters. I've seen pranksters use these "slingshots" to lob water balloons into unsuspecting civilians, but they are much better suited to return cannisters to the police. ..."
"... I know enough about HK to be a little suspicious of the motives of *some* protestors, but I'm in awe of their inventiveness and raw courage. And believe me, to protest publicly in HK/China requires real physical courage that is not required anywhere in the west, anyone who thinks otherwise is entirely clueless about the nature of the Chinese government and what it is capable of. ..."
"... The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and US centric an opinion. ..."
"... But here's the rub. Can you imagine what would happen if this all happened in a western country? Imagine this happening in New York for example. Actually we don't. The authorities came down on the Occupy Wall Street movement like a ton of bricks so we had a taste of what would happen. ..."
"... I am not saying that the Chinese government is right but I can understand their position here. They give Hong Kong a 'special deal' and the rest of China will want their own special deals. ..."
"... Just like the Chinese elites, the U.S. elites don't want to deal with the citizenry, and protest is something that shocks them. ..."
"... What really makes most HK skeptics suspicious is the way the media and the political establishment in the West are constantly slathering the students there with pure, unadulturated praise, while lambasting us skeptics as 'conspiracy theorists'. So comparisons of HK to Maidan are indeed apt. And please contrast the media's treatment of this protest with their (non-)treatment of the gilets jaunes movement in France. On that rare occasion when the MSM did deign to mention the gilets jaunes , they always faithfully accused them of 'racism' and 'anti-semitism'. But note how the HK protesters get pass for using Pepe the Frog as their symbol! ..."
"... The idea of protest is to disrupt the system and generally gum up the works, raising the costs of the offending campaign, hopefully to the point where the material and reputational damage makes the whole thing no longer worth pursuing. This is the end game. ..."
"... To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: Elites want a smoothly-running system of oppression. There is no reason to give them this gift. ..."
"... In general, the techniques described here seem unreliable and dangerous if masking your identity from surveillance is vital. The idea that you are going to identify and precisely target every video camera that can see you, 100% of the time, esp. in a moving and rapidly changing environment, seems extremely naive. Video cameras are small, cheap, inconspicuous, and easy to disguise. All that's needed by the opponent is a single video frame that shows your face clearly. ..."
Let me start out with a sidebar on "add oil" (加油), which you see all over the
coverage of the Hong Kong protests: It originated, says the OED , as a
cheer at the Macau Grand Prix in the 1960s, meaning "step on the gas" (which is good to know,
because I thought that the underlying metaphor was adding cooking oil to a wok preparatory to
frying). It translates roughly to " go for it !" Here, an apartment block encourages
the protesters by chanting it:
Sidebar completed, this post will have a simple thesis: The people of Hong Kong have
considerable experience in running protests, and we don't need to multiply invisible
entities ("hidden hands") to give an account of what they're doing. For example, it's not
necessary to postulate that the participants in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill
protests consulted CIA handlers on tactics; their tactics are often available, in open
source , on the Internet; other tactics are based on Hong Kong material culture ,
things and situations that come readily to hand and can be adapted by creative people (which
the protesters clearly are).
I started thinking about this post when I read this tweet:
So, a well-meaning Westerner suggests Gene Sharp's well-known 198 Methods of
Non-Violent Action to a HKer, who politely informs him that Sharp's work is already
available in Chinese .
Clearly, #genesharptaughtme is alive and well! (In
fact, I remember Black Lives Matter using the same hashtag.)
I am well-aware of Gene
Sharp's equivocal role as a defense intellectual -- in strong form, the Godfather of "color
revolutions" -- but at this point Sharp's influence is attenuated. Out here in reality,
information on non-violent strategy and tactics has gone global, like everything else.
You don't have to wait for your CIA handler to vouchsafe The Sacred Texts. Very
sophisticated and tested protest tactics are all available on the Internet, if you research the
media coverage of Tahrir Square, los indignados in Spain, the state capital occupations
in the United States, Occupy proper, the Carré Rouge in Quebec, and many, many other
examples (including the Umbrella movement organic to Hong Kong). It's not all Maidan -- which
is on the Internet too, and I don't regard it was useful to forcefit all protests into that
model.
So, I'm going to go through a few of the tactics used in the 2019 Hong Kong protests:
Umbrellas, Laser Pointers, Lennon Walls, and a Human Chain. For each tactic, I will throw it
into the open source bucket, or the material culture bucket; in either case,
there need be no "hidden hand." Also, I find protest tactics fascinating in and of themselves;
I think a movement is healthy if its tactics are creative, and when they are so no longer, the
movement has not long to live. (For example, Black Lives Matter started to disintegrate as a
national movement when the college die-ins stopped (and when the liberal Democrats co-opted it
by elevating Deray.) To the tactics!
Umbrellas
Umbrellas were already a symbol of protest in Hong Kong, from the Umbrella Movement of
2014. Here we see umbrellas being used to shield protestors from surveillance cameras
(although they can also be used as shields against kinetic effects).
One can indeed see that Maidan protestors using literal shields:
However, I would classify umbrella tactics as deriving from Hong Kong's material
culture ; Hong
Kong is sub-tropical ; there are typhoons; there is rain, fog, drizzle; and there is also
the sun. Massed umbrellas scale easily from the tens to the hundreds; they create a splendid
visual effect en masse ; and they are available in any corner shop. So, it is not
necessary to postulate an entity translating Maidan's heavy medieval shields to Hong Kong
umbrellas; the protestors would have worked out the uses of umbrellas themselves, adapting
the tools that come to hand to the existing conditions.
Laser Pointers
Hong Kong, under Mainland influence, is increasingly a surveillance state; it makes sense
that HKers would give considerable thought to surveillance, and how to avoid it, in the
normal course of events. How much more so protestors:
I would classify the laser pointers tactic open source , since that's how I found out that yes,
laser poinerns can knock out surveillance cameras . Again, there's no need to postulate
that some unknown entity gave the protesters the idea; anybody with a little creativity and
some research skills could come up with it, given the proper incentives (like being arrested,
say).
The idea that one may "post" anything has been actualized with Post-It Notes, giving HK
walls a digital, pixelated look:
And the authorities have just begun to tear them down: Reminds me of the NYPD bulldozing
the Zucotti Park library, sadly.
I would classify Lennon Walls in both categories: They originated, conceptually, in Prague
(so open source ) but they are well adapted for massed protest in the material
culture of Hong Kong. (Like massed umbrellas, massed PostIt notes scale easily from the
tens to the thousands; they create a splendid visual effect en masse ; and they are
available in any corner shop.)
Human Chain
Here is a poster publicizing "the Hong Kong Way," a human chain across Hong Kong: Here is
the beautiful result:
I would classify "the Hong Kong Way" as open source , since the idea originated
from " the Baltic Way
," where some two million people joined hands to form a human chain across the three Baltic
states: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Conclusion
Just to tweak the "It's a color revolution!" crowd, here's an image of HKers watching a
movie about Maidan:
I hope I have persuaded you that (a) this Maidan movie is open source "; knowledge of
Maidan as a worthy object of study, that (b) by Occam's Razor, it doesn't take a CIA handler to
tell this to HKers, and that (c) if the HKers end up building catapults , they will be
adapted to Hong Kong's material culture (i.e., probably not medieval in appearance or
structure).[1]
NOTES
[1] The HKers may also be sending a message to the authorities: If Maidan is what you want,
bring it!
Maciej Cegłowski has written a first-hand account that helped me understand some of
the tactics the protesters employ. I see he's written a follow-on piece, too. https://idlewords.com/2019/08/a_walk_in_hong_kong.htm
Another claim is that rich Hong Kongers are behind the protests, fearing extradition.
If they have factories in China now, and they are the invisible hands, I think they (and
their factories) would be in trouble already, as in 'now,' and they don't have to worry about
being extradited in the future.
Ok. I really did not want to post any more comments on Hong Kong, or China for that matter,
here at NC. But I am genuinely puzzled, and I have to say concerned, about the way this issue
has been framed here. One does not have to accept the argument that *either* (1) the protests
are completely spontaneous and genuine; *or* (2) the protests are mainly the product of CIA
manipulation of otherwise clueless dupes (a whole lot of them apparently!). This is a false
dichotomy. None of the critics of the mainstream Hong Kong narrative that I am familiar with
take a position any where close to (2). It is a straw-man position if applied to most reputable
"skeptics."
Rather, the argument I have seen most often among these skeptics (including some commenters
here) is that, while the protests *were* authentic and directed at real issues of concern to
protesters, there have also been efforts on the part of Western agents to manipulate this
situation. This included support of particular, strategically significant leaders and groups
and, of course, control of the Western media narrative. We have pictures and stories in even
the mainstream press of US officials and representatives of western NGOs meeting with such
individuals. Hell, we have US politicians bragging about it. These connections are pretty
clear, whether or not HKers can find Gene Sharp's work on the internet.
I have no doubt that many HKers are opposed to mainland rule, so China hands here need not
lecture me condescendingly on that issue. On the other hand, I have no doubt that Chinese
officials are justified in suspecting covert action by the CIA to stir things up even more
(though a lot of the activity is actually pretty overt). Looking at the postwar actions of the
US and its allies all over the world, including China in the past, they would have to be idiots
not to. And they are not idiots.
Good post. As usual, reality is far more complex and not reducible to simplistic either/or
narratives. Protest, rebellion, and unrest are endemic in Chinese (and world) history. In a
globalized and interconnected modern world, of course there is widespread awareness and cross
fertilization of movements. The "West" did not start this fire, though no doubt they are doing
some fanning of the flames.
What worries me is that I do not understand the endgame of the protesters. If you are facing
a power far greater than your own, guerilla tactics are in order, but you have to know when to
declare victory and back off for awhile. They seem to want to keep pushing and pushing until
another Tienanmen may become inevitable.
The HK protesters recognize that they have enough bodies to literally bring parts of the
city to a halt. Soon the authorities will realize that they don't have enough police to
maintain order and some sort of compromise will be in order.
Imagine if 200 cars stopped on an LA freeway. Traffic would be halted for hours before
enough tow trucks could be put in service. Bodies in the street (cars on the freeway) can be
enough to stop "business as usual".
> I do not understand the endgame of the protesters
Me neither. That's a concern. However, there is the idea that "you taught me" that
non-violence doesn't work (in 2014), "you" being the Chinese government. There is also the idea
that the Mainland is no more agreement-capable than the United States," since they have no
intention of adhering to the Basic Law on matters like universal suffrage
. If the attitude among a great mass of the protestors is that they have nothing to lose, some
sort of Masada-like scenario seems likely.
As for the rest of the comment, meh. It's simultaneously an initial withdrawal of the
debunked "color revolution" theory, and a mushy reformulation of same in different terms ("no
doubt that Chinese officials are justified in suspecting covert action by the CIA"). Either you
believe that the Hong Kong protests are organic in origin and execution, or you don't.
See my comment
here .
My sympathy for the HK protesters is somewhat impaired by their antipathy for mainlanders
and mainlander immigration to HK. Its worth reading Carl Zha on Tiananmen. I thought i knew
what happened in Tiananmen, but it turned out i didn't.
I'm a bit leery of Chongqing native Carl Zha and his sudden
elevation. Let's remember that the Mainland is just as sophisticated in its information
campaigns as the US. For example, a claim that he has revealed what really happened, as we say,
at Tien An Man, without an explanation what his views are is a red flag to me. (In the
worse case scenario, disinformation is infesting the NC comments section.) No, I'm not going to
"just listen to the YouTube" because I don't have time to devote to it, as opposed to reading a
transcript quickly.
I've just come across Zha once or twice and I certainly would not consider him a reliable
source. The 'official' narrative around Tiannanman in China (as taught to Chinese people) has
changed more than once, his seems to match the current version. This doesn't mean he is lying
or wrong, I'm just suspicious about anyone who claims to know the 'truth' about such a chaotic
and charged event, and some of the things he has written is simply not a reflection of what
Chinese people I know think about it.
Its worth pointing out of course that almost all the evidence suggests that the Chinese
intelligence penetration of the US has been far more competent than vice versa. The narrative
that somehow the CIA was behind Tiananmen (which even MoA has pushed) and the current protests
simply strains all credulity. There is no doubt they would provide any help they could to
anti-government movements within China, but there is no evidence that they've done anything
more than promote a few fringe dissidents.
Zha (to my recollection) did not suggest the CIA was behind Tiananmen. He did suggest that
the amount of violence and the cause of the violence was not as reported in the West. There was
little corroboration though. That said, he had quite an interesting take on the lone man with
shopping bag stopping tank column. Perhaps it is common knowledge but he suggested that event
took place on the day after Tiananmen, when the tanks were trying to head back to base. Just
cos he said that don't make it true of course. But it did make me ask how i know what i think i
know.
I apologize for not outlining his views. I thought it better to just suggest him as a
possible reference and allow people to come to their own conclusions. I came across him cos I
follow Mark Ames on twitter. I know of Ames cos I spent time in Moscow in the 90s. So I
considered it a good recommendation -- but hardly foolproof. Zha suggests that students in
Tienamin set a bus on fire in the square (of heavenly peace?) which unfortunately contained a
number of PLA soldiers who were burned alive. I have no way of knowing whether this account is
true. However he also suggested the iconic man in front of tank column took place on the
following day. Which was news to me, and seemed quite plausible when you consider the
interaction. But I have no reason to believe this anymore than I should believe the BBC or CNN.
Its just that where I have listened to the BBC on subjects I am personally familiar with, they
have occasionally been rather "economical" with inconvenient truths. Mr Zha has the advantage
of Ames recommendation, a clean slate, and an interesting but unproven assertion.
His take on HK protests is that they have become rather violent, with the aim being to
prompt a violent response from the Chinese authorities.
HKers appear to view themselves as distinct from mainlanders, and do not seem to welcome
mainland immigration. Fascinating to see british colonial flags brandished when telling
Mandarin speakers to "go home". But even here I am relying on the translations applied by the
makers of the videos. I dont speak Cantonese or Mandarin.
They seem to want to keep pushing and pushing until another Tienanmen may become
inevitable.
And exactly whose interests would that serve? The interests of the students? The
interests of Hong Kong generally? Answering that question will begin to take you down the
rabbit hole.
> But I am genuinely puzzled, and I have to say concerned, about the way this issue has
been framed here. One does not have to accept the argument that *either* (1) the protests are
completely spontaneous and genuine; *or* (2) the protests are mainly the product of CIA
manipulation of otherwise clueless dupes (a whole lot of them apparently!). This is a false
dichotomy. None of the critics of the mainstream Hong Kong narrative that I am familiar with
take a position any where close to (2). It is a straw-man position if applied to most reputable
"skeptics."
Nonsense. If you say that the HK protests were a "color revolution," which was the original
claim ( following Moon of
Alabama here , with the most frequent analogy being Ukraine, #2 ("clueless dupes") is
exactly what you're saying.
So, I'm not "straw manning" at all, but replying directly to a criticism expressed here.
Please follow the site more closely before you mischaracterize what I wrote.
Now, it is true that "color revolution" in strong form seems to have lost some
credibility, and that, if I may characterize the discourse collectively, we see a strategic
retreat to formulations like "I'm sure the protestors have legitimacy," but they're still
"manipulated," because, by gawd, that's what the US does.
And then we get NGOs (been around for years) and Jimmy Lai (been around for years).
Constants, that is, where the protests are a variable (which is why the heavy-breathing
GrayZone post about xenohobia doesn't impress me all that much).
The formulation employed in your comment is even weaker:
there have also been efforts on the part of Western agents to manipulate this situation.
This included support of particular, strategically significant leaders and groups and, of
course, control of the Western media narrative.
I don't know what "efforts by" even means. (I mean, there were "efforts by" various odd
Russians to meet with Trump, but no hotel was build, and so, so what?) Nor do I think that
editorials in the Times have the slightest influence either on the Hong Kong protestors or the
Mainland. I can't imagine why anybody would take them seriously.
What I am here to say is that the HK protests are organic to HK. They are organized and
directed by HKers, many of whom have a lot of experience protesting. There is no need to
multiply entities -- whether in strong form the CIA or in very weak form "the connections are
pretty clear" -- to give an account of them. Now, as I said here,
I'm sure Five Eyes are "sniffing around." Probably Taipei, Japan, Indonesia, even the French
and the Dutch; anyone with an interest in events in the South China Sea. But IMNSHO the
protestors have full agency . (It's also hard to avoid that there's a whiff of colonialism
here, too: How is it possible that mere Chinese people could achieve such things without
Western help?
And so, like clockwork -- I've noticed this in other comments that start out with the weak
form of "manipulation" and end up with the strong form of "control" -- we come right back to
that claim!
On the other hand, I have no doubt that Chinese officials are justified in suspecting
covert action by the CIA to stir things up even more (though a lot of the activity is
actually pretty overt)
(So "overt" that you can't even link to whatever the activity might be. Fine.) First,
we come back to the Mandy Rice-Davies rule: They would say that, wouldn't they? Second, so
I wasn't straw-manning at all, then, was I? Third, after I went to the trouble of applying
Occam's Razor to your claims, you just repeat them!
NOTE * "We have pictures and stories in even the mainstream press of US officials and
representatives of western NGOs meeting with such individuals." The picture is in a
hotel ffs. Pretty low level of operational security, if you ask me.
So will this protest end the way Occupy ended here in "democratic" USA? One has to
suspect the secessionist aim that is one of the apparent motives will not be rewarded.
I've often inveighed against YouTube links that don't summarize the content. In this case,
those interested in "connecting the dots" and following the money might be interested to know
that the videocaster, Sarah Flounders, is a member of the Secretariat of Workers World
Party :
The Workers World Party (WWP) is a revolutionary Marxist -- Leninist political party in
the United States founded in 1959 by a group led by Sam Marcy of the Socialist Workers Party
(SWP). Marcy and his followers split from the SWP in 1958 over a series of long-standing
differences, among them their support for Henry A. Wallace's Progressive Party in 1948, the
positive view they held of the Chinese Revolution led by Mao Zedong and their defense of the
1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary, all of which the SWP opposed.
Immediately before and during the Tienanmen Square days, China appeared to be in danger of
disintegrating into warlordism. This was overcome and the decentralizing process that
threatened to emerge was eliminated. That was a victory of socialism.
The question of how far the Chinese government can go with the capitalist reforms will
certainly be up for review, notwithstanding a constitutional provision meant to make the
reforms a permanent feature in Chinese society.
One fact has certainly emerged: the millions who left the rural areas for the great cities
of China and were absorbed into the proletariat have given the Chinese government and
Communist Party the opportunity to strengthen the socialist character of the state. The
growth of the proletariat is the objective factor most needed for the building of
socialism.
I don't think its surprising that Flounders and the WWP would retail the mainland line.
I guess that this comes about seeing what happened to all the young people who supported the
Ukrainian "revolution" for a free, just society. Twice! How did that work out for them? How is
the Ukraine going these days? What did they say when they found out that that so-called
"revolution" last time had a $5 billion 'Made-in-the-USA' sticker on it? Conspiracy theory at
the time. Recorded fact now.
> Conspiracy theory at the time. Recorded fact now.
Not so. US funding and influence was quite well-attested then, for those who were paying
attention. Oddly, or not, there seems to be no Victoria Nuland-equivalent for HK. One could
argue, of course, that there's an invisible Nuland, but Occam's Razor eliminates that. I never
followed Ukraine closely, I admit, partly because Ukraine is fabulously corrupt, and partly
because (like Syria) it seemed impossible to separate fact from fiction on the ground. (The
only rooting interest I have in Ukraine is their wonderful enormous airplanes.) I think for HK
we have a lot more well-attested information. That's what the post is about, in fact.
Re similarities or otherwise with Kiev, we will have to wait and see if there is any sniper
crowd killings in HK as with the 'Heavenly Hundred' in Kiev. At the time, the shootings were
blamed on the government, but compelling evidence since points to US backed snipers from
Georgia.
Compelling might be pushing a point. There is certainly evidence, and some of it is quite
persuasive. However I dont consider some Georgians snipers on Italian tv compelling
evidence.
There is video of HKers using 3-person surgical tubing catapults to return to sender
tear gas cannisters. I've seen pranksters use these "slingshots" to lob water balloons into
unsuspecting civilians, but they are much better suited to return cannisters to the
police.
I did a brief search on the Internet for some video but couldn't find it.
The Maidan catapult had its own Twitter account. Here's what it looked like:
I doubt very much that a catapult designed by HKers would look like this; it is not
constructed of materials that come readily to hand. (And perhaps massed slingshots would be
more effective anyhow.)
(I can't read any languages written in Cyrillic, so I defer to any readers who can on my
interpretation.)
Endless wars. Smoke filled skies. Hurricanes, drought, flooding. No purpose in life.
Incarceration, surveillance and insurmountable debt. Arrogant incompetence.
Change is coming. People need hope. A movement will be born.
"Bring it on" -- "Pa'lante" in Spanish.
Hurray For The Riff Raff -- Pa'lante
"And do my time, and be something
Well I just wanna prove my worth --
On the planet Earth, and be, something"
"To all who had to hide, I say, iPa'lante!
To all who lost their pride, I say, ¡Pa'lante!
To all who had to survive, I say, ¡Pa'lante!"
"To my brothers, and my sisters, I say, ¡Pa'lante!"
Para Alante. Pa'lante for forward/move forward/go forward/go to the front/continue/keep
pushing forward/don't stop
Different Spanish interpretations depending on which blend of the language your ears become
attuned to .mine flow from cuban, with a twist of Puerto Rican/Newrican, a dabble of dominican,
some mexican icing and a little Columbian sprinkles on top
Thank you for this Lambert. Perhaps its my perspective of coming from a small country, but I
find the anti-HK protestor comments I see here and elsewhere baffling coming from supposed
progressives. Sometimes, really, its not all about the US, or even US Imperialism.
I know enough about HK to be a little suspicious of the motives of *some* protestors,
but I'm in awe of their inventiveness and raw courage. And believe me, to protest publicly in
HK/China requires real physical courage that is not required anywhere in the west, anyone who
thinks otherwise is entirely clueless about the nature of the Chinese government and what it is
capable of.
The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely
irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or
Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and
US centric an opinion.
As to the questions about the endgame, I really don't know, and I suspect the protestors
don't know either. My own opinion is that this is as much a nationalist movement as a political
one. Many HKers see themselves as a nation with one foot in the east and one in the west and
want to preserve this status, but nobody has to my knowledge articulated how they can achieve
this. Many of them have a romantic notion of what western 'freedoms' mean, but not quite as
romantic as people think, as so many HKers have lived in the US or UK or elsewhere and are not
entirely politically naive. But they sure as hell know they do not want to live in an
autocratic State led by Beijing, and they are perfectly entitled to that view.
Your last part of your comment makes the protestors sound like the Brexiteers of the Far
Fast. People who want radical change but are uncertain how to go about it and with no clear aim
in mind. They may not want to live in an autocratic State led by Beijing but according to the
map that I use, Hong Kong is within the borders of China. They are not going to get
independence and they cannot go back to the way things were so they had better sort out what it
is they want their relationship to Beijing to be before it is decided for them.
No. But their five demands don't sound like a winning combination. It doesn't make them
sound even serious about full-fledged change-
1-The complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill
2-The government to withdraw the use of the word "riot" in relation to protests
3-The unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped
4-An independent inquiry into police behaviour
5-Implementation of genuine universal suffrage
That's a demand that Mainland China adhere to the Basic Law that transferred Hong Kong from
British sovereignty to PRC sovereignty. What's unserious about that?
Agreed about that last demand but it is the outlier on that list. Demands 2, 3 and 4 sound
like they are trying to 'prepare the battlefield' for the next series of protests by
undermining the ability of the Hong Kong Police to do their work. Demand 1 is just fulfilling
the casus belli for this series of protests.
> 'prepare the battlefield' for the next series of protests by undermining the ability of
the Hong Kong Police to do their work
In what sense is that not serious? (I'll say again that I think the HKers want what they
think is liberal democracy as the US/UK may once be said to have had it this is not a
proletarian revolution. Hence, the presence of billionaire Lai is unproblematic, despite heavy
breathing at Grey Zone.)
In what sense is asking for one's first demand not serious? Is it more serious to write it
off?
I realize that this is not a popular line of thought but I believe that you do have to
consider all aspects of such a big event to be fair. I mean, even Paul Joseph Watson came out
with a video supporting the protests-
But here's the rub. Can you imagine what would happen if this all happened in a western
country? Imagine this happening in New York for example. Actually we don't. The authorities
came down on the Occupy Wall Street movement like a ton of bricks so we had a taste of what
would happen.
I am not saying that the Chinese government is right but I can understand their position
here. They give Hong Kong a 'special deal' and the rest of China will want their own special
deals.
Hong Kong already has its own special deal, 'one nation, two systems' is the official slogan
from Beijing. Its Beijing that is backing away from this, not the protestors.
That's right. A 50-year deal and China was not in much of a position to do a lot about it.
Times change and I guess that the Chinese feel that it is time to redress the wrongs of the
past according to their lights. I wonder if Macau has the same issues.
So if China is, as accused, reneging on the "two systems" then where are the protestors on
the "one nation"? To some of us it appears that these young people simply don't want to be a
part of China. If true then that's an aim that goes far beyond mere reform.
And the reason USG involvement matters is that some of us don't believe the US should be
meddling in other countries -- even ones as unfree as China. The protestors could reassure
about the purity of their aims by renouncing US support or the sanctions that some Republicans
in Congress are threatening rather than waving US and British flags.
A 50-year deal and China was not in much of a position to do a lot about it.
Where on earth did you get that idea? It was actually China's idea, promoted by Deng
Xiaoping -- part of their strategy to woo Taiwan and ease the concerns of their neighbours.
Plus, it made perfect sense for them economically.
> The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely
irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or
Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and
US centric an opinion.
PK: Thanks. You mention coming from a small country, and I think it would benefit all U.S.
peeps here to adjust their perspectives accordingly. Good advice.
Second is dispelling the typical "Don't know much about history" attitude in the U S of A. I
notice how Lambert Strether ties together several recent organic protest movements. (Should we
also throw in Iranian protests after the presidential election in 2009, Taksim protests in
Istanbul, and Greek protests against austerity? All of which were organic and fit these models
-- the chants from the apartment building remind me of the videos of call and response at night
in Iranian cities during those protests.)
Americans like to act as if every event is brand new. And the "don't know much about about
history" attitude means being "nonjudgmental" -- which means having no control to assess facts
and not much concern for critical thinking.
One question to be asked here would be: How can protest in the U S of A be raised to the HK
or Taksim level of disruption?
Just like the Chinese elites, the U.S. elites don't want to deal with the citizenry, and
protest is something that shocks them.
And the endgame? The endgame is protest. What comes next? We may be in an era where more
protest is needed. Time to study again the disruptions of 1848?
What really makes most HK skeptics suspicious is the way the media and the political
establishment in the West are constantly slathering the students there with pure, unadulturated
praise, while lambasting us skeptics as 'conspiracy theorists'. So comparisons of HK to Maidan
are indeed apt. And please contrast the media's treatment of this protest with their
(non-)treatment of the gilets jaunes movement in France. On that rare occasion when the
MSM did deign to mention the gilets jaunes , they always faithfully accused them of
'racism' and 'anti-semitism'. But note how the HK protesters get pass for using Pepe the Frog
as their symbol!
Whom the media cover and how they cover them will always tell you a lot about who is really
behind a protest movement and who really stands to benefit from it.
Let me start out with a sidebar on "add oil" (加油), which you see all over
the coverage of the Hong Kong protests: It originated, says the OED, as a cheer at the Macau
Grand Prix in the 1960s, meaning "step on the gas" (which is good to know, because I thought
that the underlying metaphor was adding cooking oil to a wok preparatory to frying). It
translates roughly to "go for it!"
I have noticed that Germans often the phrase Gas geben (to floor it, to accelerate)
with roughly the same colloquial meaning of 'to get a move on'.
I do not understand the endgame of the protesters.
The idea of protest is to disrupt the system and generally gum up the works, raising the
costs of the offending campaign, hopefully to the point where the material and reputational
damage makes the whole thing no longer worth pursuing. This is the end game.
To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: Elites want a smoothly-running system of oppression. There
is no reason to give them this gift.
XXYY: Yes. And there were a few essays recently about disobedience. The question isn't why
people disobey. The true question is: Why is the mass of citizens so obedient?
During the Occupy protests one continually heard this question: What do they want?!?!
Leaving aside the fact that a group of 5000 people carrying large signs generally makes
answering this question pretty easy, there seemed to be a limited ability to grasp the idea
that protest is in fact an end .
I think we have somehow been seduced or indoctrinated with the idea that if you do A, it
must be strictly in service of getting B. Often the motivations are just inchoate rage or
anger, and often the intention is just to call attention to something or just f*ck sh*t
up!
As we saw with Occupy, a major turning point in US history and society and the origin of
much that was to come, it's fine to just trust the universe to helpfully spin your actions in
ways your never could have predicted.
To what end? That doesn't boost the number of cops. China brings in the tanks? That maybe
ends hk usefulness to China as offshore financial center and certainly ends rapprochement with
Taiwan.
IMO China's instinct for heavy handed response has led them to a series of mistakes. Perhaps
the trade war has them on edge.
In general, the techniques described here seem unreliable and dangerous if masking your
identity from surveillance is vital. The idea that you are going to identify and precisely
target every video camera that can see you, 100% of the time, esp. in a moving and rapidly
changing environment, seems extremely naive. Video cameras are small, cheap, inconspicuous, and
easy to disguise. All that's needed by the opponent is a single video frame that shows your
face clearly.
A much better approach to work on seems like trying to obscure your own identifying
features. Obviously people are doing this with masks, hoods, goggles, hard hats, umbrellas, and
everything else.
One thing I haven't seen too much about is strategies specifically intended to defeat facial
recognition technology. AI-based recognizers seem to be extremely brittle; small and even
undetectable modifications to the source data seem to be able to throw them off completely
(e.g. https://mashable.com/2017/11/02/mit-researchers-fool-google-ai-program/
). One can imagine these approaches being deployed deliberately as camoflauge or a "disguise".
Obviously the problem would be finding robust techniques.
gjohnsit on Sun, 08/25/2019 - 8:57pm The media has been exaggerating the things that
Trump has been saying for a long time.
In many cases their overreaction was tiresome.
But this past week was something else. Trump really did start talking like an insane
person .
President Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to release ISIS fighters in Europe as a form of
punishment for countries like Germany and France; said he's strongly considering trying to
change the Constitution by executive order (it doesn't work that way); indicated he hasn't
ruled out trying to illegally serve more than two terms; rewrote history during comments
about Russia's expulsion from the G8 that framed the situation in the most pro-Kremlin manner
possible; and, despite five draft deferments, joked about giving himself the Medal of Honor.
That was Wednesday. And that's an incomplete list of all the outlandish stuff Trump said
on that day alone.
Any of the aforementioned statements would've generated major scandals coming from the
mouth of any other president. But given the week Trump has been having, they arguably didn't
even make the cut of the five most WTF things he's said since his New Jersey vacation ended
on Monday.
Did you catch all of that? Because that isn't even the most
bizarre stuff .
Just this morning, the president delivered a proclamation stating that, "Our great American
companies are hereby ordered" to stop dealing with China (!). He also declared the chairman
of the Federal Reserve, whom he himself appointed, was an enemy of the state.
But remember when the president endorsed the idea he is King of Israel and the Second
Coming of God? And then he said Jewish people who vote for Democrats -- that is, the 70-to-80
percent of American Jews who don't support him -- are guilty of "disloyalty" to Israel? And
then he accused Rashida Tlaib of anti-Semitism? And then he started screaming, "WHERE IS THE
FEDERAL RESERVE?" And then he canceled a diplomatic trip to Denmark because the prime
minister was rude in saying she wouldn't sell him Greenland? And then he demanded Russia be
reinstated in the G8, and said they were only thrown out because they "outsmarted" Obama,
when in fact it was because they'd invaded Ukraine? And then he declared he was The Chosen
One, looking to the heavens as he said it, who'd been tapped by the almighty to launch a
trade war against China?
TRUMP: "The fake news, of which many of you are members, is trying to convince the public
to have a recession. 'Let's have a recession!' ... I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do
it. So I'm taking on China." pic.twitter.com/OHmXOzoO7I
....like he's the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God...But
American Jews don't know him or like him. They don't even know what they're doing or saying
anymore. It makes no sense! But that's OK, if he keeps doing what he's doing, he's good
for.....
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, ..."
"... But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. ..."
"... Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. ..."
"... Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War. ..."
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com . ..."
The election of Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who won decisively throughout
most of the country, represents the possibility of peace with Russia, if it -- and he -- are
given a chance. His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters
in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the
Donbass rebels and with Moscow, notably provisions associated with the European-sponsored Minsk
Accords. Zelensky, on the other hand, has made peace (along with corruption) his top priority
and indeed spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on July 11. The nearly
six-year war having become a political, diplomatic, and financial drain on his leadership,
Putin welcomed the overture.
But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in
Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say
quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a
Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian
citizens. (Washington has previously had some shameful episodes of
collusion with these Ukrainian neo-Nazis .) As for Putin, who does not fully control the
Donbass rebels or its leaders, he "can never be seen at home," as
I pointed out more than two years ago , "as 'selling out' Russia's 'brethren' anywhere in
southeast Ukraine." Indeed, his own implacable nationalists have made this a litmus test of his
leadership.
Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his
would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now
Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary
Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point
man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over
Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their
hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it
eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence.
Our hope should be that Trump breaks with that long-standing bipartisan policy, as he did
with policy toward North Korea, and puts America squarely on the side of peace in Ukraine. (For
now, Zelensky has set aside Moscow's professed irreversible "reunification" with Crimea, as
should Washington.) A new US policy must include recognition, previously lacking, that the
citizens of war-ravaged Donbass are not primarily "Putin's stooges" but people with their own
legitimate interests and preferences, even if they favor Russia. Here too Zelensky is embarking
on a new course. Poroshenko waged an "anti-terrorist" war against Donbass: the new president is
reaching out to its citizens even though most of them were unable to vote in the election.
Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably
architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking
regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question
-- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the
views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more
important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold
War.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host of The John Batchelor
Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .
The Democrat establishment are bereft of any new policy ideas or the ability to advance any policy framework through the
House let alone bring along the Senate. Egged on by the TDS afflicted "fake news" media all they've got is politicization. Their
Mueller silver bullet failed. So they'll go with an impeachment with all the media hysteria accompanying it fully realizing
that they don't have the votes in the Senate convict.
I'm not certain how this will play out in the mid-west where the next election will be decided. OTOH, an impeachment would
possibly force Trump to get aggressive about releasing all the incriminating documents and communications about the attempted
coup by the Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence leadership. Of course they would claim that what Trump is
doing is purely political and that they were only doing their patriotic duty. We're going to be in for more TDS media frenzy.
The last time they lost an election with sure thing Hillary. Do they expect to win with the same tactics with Sleepy Joe and
his long track record of being in the pocket of the financial industry?
It looks like Barr may mean business. He seems to be pushing ahead trying to get to the bottom of how the Russia collusion
investigation began in the first place.
Listen to this interview of Barr. Very interesting. As someone who has always opposed the growth in the unfettered powers
of the national security surveillance state, the fact that a sitting attorney general is using words like "praetorian guard"
in an interview is of great interest. Let's see how this is going to shake out. There is a possibility that the tide is
turning and the investigators may actually be investigated.
"The American Dream" as well as the American "Middle Class" have always bee a puzzle to me. The Dream seems to mean owning
a house to a lot of people. The Middle Class is what, a European style bourgeoisie?
As an outsider, it has always seemed to be that a succinct definition of the "American Dream" is that your kids will be better
off (you define "better") than you were.
Not unique to the USA, of course, but the inspiration for many many immigrants.
I think Trump is a buffoon who should not be President but that is not an impeachable offense. I think the Democrats would
be stupid to try to impeach, it would fail miserably in the Senate and probably lead to a trump victory in 2020. Compared with
Bush and Cheney, Trump is a minor sinner. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached for putting together a false case for going
to war in Iraq. That is the kind of mistake that cost thousands of lives a couple trillion dollars. If ever there was a case
for impeachment - that was the big one we missed.
Dick Morris agrees that impeachment will destroy the Dems "what will destroy them is that they apparently have nothing else
to say" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnI64DKD6o0
Main reassons to impeach Trump are related to its behavior on foreign policy,... if in that he would not be fully supported
by the Democrat apparatus...
The harm he has done to the US word and image throughout the world is of epic proportions, one wonders if it would be recoverable
any time....
-Storming of foreign embassies, starting with the Russian ones amd following with Venezuela´s
-Appropiating of foreign assests on basis of not liking the sign of the countryés governments.
-Naming presidents in charge of foreign countries whose government he does not like.
-Giving away foreign cities which do not belong to him to alleged allies tied to his close family.
-Illegal presence of US troops in foreign countries even after calls by legitimate authorities of those counries to go.
-Threatening every country whose government he does not like through his Twitter account and officials, even with war.
-Going against every principle of free market, which the US economy is supposedly based on, by ordering fully protectionist
measures on Us products and to private companies to comply with his overextended sanctions on everybody who could compete in
anything with the US or do not submit to US designs...
Then it is his continuous refusal to show his tax return.....There is something there, for sure...
Congratulations!
This year your birthday coincided with Al Quds Day...May be a sign...
"... They all have dirt to hide and at the moment, none are game to start a war of attrition. Trump makes a threat by declassifying some documents from the Mueller investigation and Mueller comes back with his move, but so far no heads have rolled and perhaps never will. ..."
"... There is a high probability that we could see two hulks (Dems and Repugs) bashing it out in the ring. The spectacle could totally trash the leadership of both and leave the field open for a leader ..."
"... but how are the corporate hacks that run the democratic party going to do it? the core economic and social issues are waiting to be taken up (again) by a progressive candidate - it infuriates me what the DNC and clinton did to Sanders, because he would be sitting in the white house right now if they hadn't pulled their dirty tricks. ..."
"... and no, identity politics is not going to defeat this fucker. nor is screaming russia russia russia ..."
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
May 23
"Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the
intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General's investigation into surveillance
activities....
....during the 2016 Presidential election. The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to
declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling
classified information....
....Today's action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that
were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions."
They all have dirt to hide and at the moment, none are game to start a war of attrition. Trump makes a threat by
declassifying some documents from the Mueller investigation and Mueller comes back with his move, but so far no heads have
rolled and perhaps never will.
Absolutely brothers, you nailed it. There is a high probability that we could see two
hulks (Dems and Repugs) bashing it out in the ring. The spectacle could totally trash the
leadership of both and leave the field open for a leader. If only it were easier to have a
new third party for the Presidential race. AFAIK establishing a third party to run takes
years and can only be registered after immense hurdles are crossed.
And no, I am not advocating the Greens for Bernie or Tulsi. That way is suicide.
I am sure there are many reasons why democrats want to impeach trump but to me it comes down
to this, they are hot about impeachment because they are so afraid they won't be able to
defeat him in the next election. get it. this is really simple.
there are two ways to get him out of power, so they think - either successful impeachment
(highly doubtful both on the actual charges, and convincing 67 senators to go along with the
house), or actually defeating him in 2020..... how they gonna do that? what are the great
issues that the democrats are going to taken on, again, to defeat this wanker - bad trump bad
bad bad! you know, that worked really well the last time didn't it?
the man is a menace both to the country and to the world, and should be defeated. who's
gonna take hi s place, another neo-liberal and war monger, like biden. don't make me
laugh.
but how are the corporate hacks that run the democratic party going to do it? the core
economic and social issues are waiting to be taken up (again) by a progressive candidate - it
infuriates me what the DNC and clinton did to Sanders, because he would be sitting in the
white house right now if they hadn't pulled their dirty tricks.
and no, identity politics is not going to defeat this fucker. nor is screaming russia
russia russia
Trump is just a bloody clown and maybe the American people deserve hold.
The American people are 'exceptional' in there delusional degenerate greed.
Here is a clip from the speaker of the U.K. House of Commons (a Tory)
If Trump is impeached then this will just confirm the false-fact of Russian interference in
the US elections. While the fuss about Venezuela was going on, US mercenaries appear to have
been involved in massacres and putting down an insurrection/revolution in Haiti.
The US have (this week) encouraged Kosovo special forces to conduct operations in Serbian
held areas in violation of UN agreements and have assaulted and arrested UN officers (who are
Russian) - The US is seeking to provoke the nightmare of Balkan conflict and drag Russia into
open conflict by provoking a war between Kosovo and Serbia.
The US have (today) accused Russia of conducting Nuclear Tests when there is absolutely no
evidence of this (Nuclear explosions would have been detected).
The US is maneuvering towards war. Only the American people can stop this. The Trump
psycho-drama is a major distraction which is obscuring US actions from its own people.
This next US election looks like it's going to be a major joke. American's are going to
get a lot more comments like that of Lowdown @92 unless you start getting control of what
your Nation (on your behalf) is doing to the world.
Circe wrote: "The reason Pelosi is against impeachment is because her Zionist financiers want
Trump or Biden to win, and if Trump is impeached this will favor Sanders. Sanders would be
higher in the polls if Dems weren't so scared of Trump labelling him a radical socialist."
I can think of two reasons for Pelosi to be against impeachment - Trump will continue cry
"witch hunt!" and the media will help him with plenty of coverage, and he and the GOP will
point out that the House is wasting time with investigations instead of helping "hard working
Americans". They may even revive the old "Do nothing Congress" tag.
Trump's crimes such as they are have yet to be revealed. The federal courts in New York state
will be the venue and it is inconceivable based on any objective reading of the US Criminal
Justice System that an investigation into Trump's businesses for the prior 10-20 years will
not result crimes being uncovered.
The other objective reading that will apply is whether Trump by virtue of his now extreme
elitism will be let off the hook. I'm thinking the answer is yes he will be let off the
hook.
Anyone stuck on "Russiagate" is simply evading Trump's true legal exposure.
Trump is tooting Boris and Nigel's horn. Notice how this Zio ass kisser doesn't even give
Corbyn the time of day, but instead is slobbering all over Netanyahoo calling his win
resounding and now what is happening to BibiYahoo so unfair. Then you expect me to show
restraint where Trump is concerned?
The best thing that can happen is Sanders getting Pence as a campaign opponent! Trump
would be way more dirty with Sanders. Anyone against impeachment is in the Zionist camp!
PERIOD, end of sentence.
It utterly amazes me how you neo liberals still don't get why people voted for Trump. It will
be the same reasons why he isn't going to win again.
He won by just barely flipping three rust belt states. Has he stopped any income
depressing immigration? Nope, its accelerating. How about ending those pesky international
entanglements, and getting along? Unless your an Israel firster, the answer is a big zero.
PA, Wisconsin, Michigan all have Democrat governors now. Woohoo...more dead and illegals
voting Democrat. Make matters worse you have the impending agriculture and financial
collapse. My guess is the Donald will pull out of the election at the most inopportune time,
and not even bother with it.
By the way Trump ain't the problem. The bankers and their central bank are the problem.
The deep state was created to serve them. Guess for some as long as (D) is in back of our
politicians name, all will be good. Sad.
Re "An impeachment will be anyway be unsuccessful because the Republicans own the Senate and
will vote down any impeachment indictment that might pass the House."
Respectfully, MofA, please stick to your excellent, insightful, and informative analyses
in the international arena and stay away from US domestic politics.
The Dems are not at all sure about winning in 2020, not least because of the pathetic
gaggle of so-called candidates they've go to offer. Their main goal in pursuing impeachment
will not be to weaken Trump for 2020, it's – still – to get him out of the White
House.
As was the case in 2016, Trump's the only GOP candidate who has a shot at winning, though
it's not a sure thing. The Dems want a sure thing.
Do they have the goods to get rid of him yet? No. That's while they'll keep digging.
Taxes. Business skullduggery in NY. Babes. They hope that sooner or later they'll uncover
something that will give enough Republicans in the Senate an excuse to give Trump the
heave-ho.
A Republican Senate will "vote down any impeachment"? Ha. Compare Clinton and Nixon.
Clinton literally could have raped Juanita Broaddrick in the middle of Fifth Avenue and the
Dems still would have circled the wagons to defend him, as they in fact did, without a single
Dem vote to convict.
Nixon, however, was done in by his own party when Senate GOP leaders told Tricky Dick
(loathed by most of his party, as Trump is) that he had to resign or they would vote to
remove him. Depending on what the Dems dig up, Republicans can be counted on to see scary
editorials in the Washington Post and New York Times and run in panic. "I've always been
supportive of the president, but I can't defend that. So I have no choice but to ") Add the
fact that between a quarter and a third of GOP Senators would jump at the chance to put a
knife in Trump's back if they got the opportunity, with sanctimonious warmonger Mitt Romney
at the front of the line.
I am not predicting that Trump will be removed: the Dems might come up empty on the needed
dirt; they may fall short of the number of Republicans they need to give him the "Nixon
talk"; even if he is given an ultimatum, he may decide to fight and actually win. But don't
take it as a given that impeachment is a futile exercise undertaken only to weaken Trump for
reelection and likely to backfire. It might succeed.
If it doesn't, Trump's chances of winning reelection are better than even, though the
landscape has become less favorable. His base remains strong (most of his Deplorables think
he's actually delivering on his promises, because he says so in tweets and at his rallies.
Look at that big, beautiful invisible nonexistent Wall! Winning!). On the other hand, failure
to control our border means the demographic shift against Republicans continues, coupled with
zero efforts to police voting by non-citizens and (notably in Florida) letting felons vote.
If Trump loses either Florida or Pennsylvania, it's probably all over even with a lousy
Democratic opponent. That's aside from whatever economic hiccup occurs between now and next
fall. Or if Trump gets in a war somewhere.
Finally, I dispute the suggestion it's desirable to elect more Dems to Congress. Let's
agree Republicans are horrible. But even if you like the Dems on domestic grounds (I don't)
let's not ignore the fact that on the warmongering front the Dems are at least as bad as the
GOP and in most cases worse, especially when it comes to Russia. Note how Mueller began and
ended his swan song by emphasizing the Russian "attack" on the US in 2016. That's will
continue to be the core dogma of the Democratic Party, with most of the GOP joining them in
making sure Trump shows no sign of heresy. More Democrats means even more of a straitjacket
on whatever off-script impulses Trump occasionally displays with regard to Korea, Syria, and
Russia. Even Iran, where he has disavowed regime change (somebody tell President
Bolton!).
"... Muller has been and is a partisan hack. His job is to clearly state if President colluded or obstructed justice. If he did show collusion or obstruction, and then declined to indict due to Justice Department restrictions then it will be up to the Congress to impeach. He did no such thing but wrote a clumsy report & held a clumsy press conference. Time to drop this charade. ..."
"... There is no evidence that the state of Russia officially did anything. Only a couple of private people and Ukraine (Fancy Bear is Ukrainian). The worst thing the deep state does is continue to promote that the Russians did anything. Hillary's gang did do something is the only story. ..."
"... It is very depressing to see the Dems abandoning government and the future direction of the country, to go full time witch-hunt. ..."
Muller has been and is a partisan hack. His job is to clearly state if President colluded or obstructed justice. If he did
show collusion or obstruction, and then declined to indict due to Justice Department restrictions then it will be up to the Congress
to impeach. He did no such thing but wrote a clumsy report & held a clumsy press conference. Time to drop this charade.
There is no evidence that the state of Russia officially did anything. Only a couple of private people and Ukraine (Fancy Bear
is Ukrainian). The worst thing the deep state does is continue to promote that the Russians did anything. Hillary's gang did do
something is the only story.
Wikileaks got their information from a thumb drive given to them by a disgusted Democratic Party worker. Trumps best friends
are those that are being smeared: Russia, China, Assange. When Trump believes trash talk against the innocent by the guilty, he
works against himself.
OMG. Don't you "get it?" At the very top levels, those above Trump and government officials, Trump was given exoneration
with major players, who control the leadership of their party, opposing any further action on the exoneration, and they got Assange.
Happened at the same exact time. When all of a sudden, Trump "didn't know WikiLeaks."
Fine..... time to release all documents related to Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the FISA courts, the political
spying by the Obola Administration....
The Dems want nuklear political warfare? Give them nuklear criminal and judicial warfare?
But they better be aware there won't be any Democrats around to run for 2020 'cause they will all be dealing with their own
criminal proceedings.
This "shadowy Russian" might well be Sergey Skripal. This suggests that Steele dossier was CIA operation with British MI6 as transfer mechanism and
Steele as a cover. And implicates Brennan. So this is next level of leaks after "Stormy Daniel"...
Another NYT leak out of a set of well coordinated leans from anonymous intelligence officials ;-) Poor Melania...
Notable quotes:
"... But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to a fascinating report from The New York Times. ..."
"... If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7 during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries. ..."
"... More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia is still being stoked no matter what. ..."
"... Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine, McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down. ..."
"... the CIA has to turn America into a criminal totalitarian regime in order to make the world safe for democracy ..."
"... How much you wanna bet that Brennan, Obama's CIA Director, was behind ..."
"... You mean the same Brennan who is the godfather of ISIS? ..."
"... "U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can call off the hounds. ..."
"... Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it... ..."
"... Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big bad russkies tricked us. ..."
"... 'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope. Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a long shot. ..."
"... i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds. this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to trump. ..."
"... Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a cloth." ..."
"... And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works ..."
"... So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers for procurers of hosebags for him to screw? ..."
When they said "Russian collusion", few expected it to be between the CIA and a "shadowy
Russian operative." And yet, according to a blockbuster NYT report, that's precisely what
happened.
* * *
The CIA paid $100,000 last year to a Russian operative who claimed to have derogatory
information about President Trump, including a video tape of the Republican engaged with
prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. If the video showed Trump, it would support claims made in
the infamous Steele dossier, the salacious opposition research report financed by the Clinton
campaign and DNC.
But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other
information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to
a fascinating report from The New York Times.
American spies made contact with the Russia early in 2017 after he offered to sell the Trump
material along with cyber hacking tools that were stolen from the NSA that year, according to
The Times. U.S. intelligence officials told The Times they were so desperate to retrieve those
tools that they negotiated with the operative for months despite several red flags, including
indications that he was working in concert with Russian intelligence.
Another red flag was the Russian's financial request. He initially sought $10 million for
the information but dropped the asking price to $1 million.
After months of negotiations, American spies handed over $100,000 in cash in a brief case to
the Russian during a meeting in Berlin in September.
The operative also offered documents and emails that purported to implicate other Trump
associates, including former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But The Times viewed the
documents and reported that they were mostly information that is already in the public
domain.
The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers, showed the video
purported to be Trump to a Berlin-based American businessman who served as his intermediary to
the CIA. But according to the Times, the footage and the location of the viewing raised
questions about its authenticity.
The 15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was
Trump, and there was no audio. The Russian also showed the video to his American partner at the
Russian embassy in Berlin, a sign that the operative had ties to Russian intelligence.
The Russian stonewalled the production of the cyber tools, and U.S. officials eventually cut
ties, according to The Times. After the payout in Berlin, the man provided information about
Trump and his associates of questionable veracity.
The Americans gave him an ultimatum earlier in 2018 to either play ball, leave Western
Europe, or face criminal charges. He left, according to The Times, which interviewed U.S.
officials, the American intermediary and the Russian for its article.
The Times' U.S. sources -- who appear to paint the American side in a positive light -- said
that they were reluctant to purchase information because they did not want to be seen buying
dirt on the president.
The officials also expressed concern that the Russian operative was planting disinformation
on behalf of the Russian government. U.S. officials were worried that the Russian government
has sought to sow discord between U.S. intelligence agencies and Trump. The revelation that the
CIA purchased dirt on him would likely do the trick.
The Times report also has other new details.
Four other Russians with ties to the spy world have surfaced over the past year offering to
sell dirt on Trump that closely mirrors allegations made in the dossier, according to the
article. But officials have reason to believe that some of sellers have ties to Russian
intelligence agencies.
The Times also provides new details on Cody Shearer, a notorious operative close to the
Clintons. Shearer was recently revealed to have shopped
around a so-called "second dossier" prior to the campaign which mirrored the sex allegations of
the Steele report.
According to The Times, he has criss-crossed Europe over the past six months in an attempt
to find video footage of Trump from the Moscow hotel room. Shearer claimed to have information
from the FSB, Russia's spy service, that a video existed of Trump with prostitutes in a Moscow
hotel room.
He shared a memo making the allegations with his friend and fellow Clinton fixer, Sidney
Blumenthal. Blumenthal in turn passed the memo to his friend, Jonathan Winer, a Department of
State official. Winer then gave the information to Steele who provided it to the FBI in October
2016.
Steele also provided information to Winer, who wrote up a two-page memo that was circulated
within the State Department.
Trump has denied allegations that he used prostitutes in Moscow. He has called the dossier a
"hoax" and "crap."
* * *
On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted that "according to the @nytimes, a Russian sold phony
secrets on "Trump" to the U.S. Asking price was $10 million, brought down to $1 million to be
paid over time. I hope people are now seeing & understanding what is going on here. It is
all now starting to come out - DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Of course, if Trump really wants to "drain the swamp", any such decision would have
originate with him. Tags PoliticsCommercial Banks
Release the pee pee video now! No one pee peed in the $100,000 video in question. The
15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was Trump,
and there was no audio. And how can anyone be more fascinated by the prospect of pee pee than
by the fact that US intelligence agencies were buying bad information from extremely shady
foreigners in an attempt to overthrow the President of the United States?
Trump is starting to assume that the people are dumber than Obowel did. Earth to Don, you
sir have the drain pump, you sir have surrounded yourself with Swamp creatures.... You sir
are.............
According to this, the Russians stole the hacking tools needed to cut through the Swamp
levee, which were developed by the NSA, and now the CIA cannot buy them back. Now, since the
USA wanted its Swamp, the Russians are more than happy to let the USA drown in its swamp.
Anyone have a link for the Qanon posts. I haven't seen them in a couple of weeks since he
left 8chan where he was posting. I don't want the Youtube BS, I just want the link... anyone
got one. Its strangely not googleable... LOLZ.
If you think that the CIA is a U.S. intelligence agency working on the best interests of
the United States, you better wake up and smell the treason. They only work for the best
interests of themselves.
Here is a question. Why does the CIA not come out and clear the air re: Trump?
I mean they were even paying people to come up with dirt. He is now your president and the
country is a fucking mess. Should the CIA not come out and say we tried but we got nothing?
They do have the ability to fix all this Trump shit and yet crickets.
And the best interests of clients. The CIA started out is the muscle for the Dulles
Brothers clients who were being booted out of various countries they were super-exploiting.
The Agency hasn't looked back since.
Nobody got whizzed on. That lurid fantasy came soley out of the head of Hillary Clinton,
given to Blumenthal, passed around and made to look like it came from Russia.
It IS remarkable the stuff people believe when all logic goes against it. Like Oswald
firing magic bullets from an old Italian Carcano...and jet fuel melting steel beams...and a
building collapsing through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint after NOT
being hit by an airplane...and Kennedy being shot from behind, but his head snapping
backwards from the impact...and Oswald picking the worst possible shooting location, but in
front of Kennedy were two intersecting highways going in any direction...and terrorist
passports floating gently down from the sky.
RFK and Nixon knew immediately the assassination of JFK was a CIA hit job because they had
CHAIRED those hit squad operations themselves for Cuban Operations. They saw the CIA- Cuban
hit squad fingerprints all over the kill. RFK had personally fired Wm Harvey, Dulles' chief
of assassinations. However, RFK was silenced because he and Jack had been tag-teaming Marilyn
Monroe.
The reason JFK was killed was a) his openly stated determination to shatter the CIA into a
thousand pieces so they could no longer operate as a dangerous, renegade private army; and b)
in the Spring of '63 JFK delivered his famous American U address calling for the end of the
Cold War...
Oswald was always a patsie... the WC documents how his rifle was inoperable... scope
needed parts just to be be sited and take aim... even after parts installed the rifle
attributed to Oswald remained highly inaccurate... Military sharpshooters couldn't even hit
stationary targets reliably.
Drain the swamp! Townsquare justice for Odumbo and Hitlery! George Soros to bathe in the
Amazon River with 1 million Piranha Fish until it completely disappears. Drain the evil
Dumorat swamp. Drain the banana republic CIA and FBI. Our tax dollars and constitution did
not pay for this shit.
With today's technology, the CIA is most likely working on a fake video for you right now.
They might release it on Vimeo or Netflix to cover the costs and give themselves plausible
deniability. To add a finishing touch they will make a fake video of Julian Assange claiming
he is releasing it. You'll be in hog heaven. Which is where folks like you go just before
being slaughtered by your owners and turned into spam.
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help
themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia
is still being stoked no matter what.
Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does
that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine,
McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to
Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the
rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down.
Good point in the last sentence. If someone is going to "drain the swamp" it is going to
have to be the president of the United States. I think I'm correct that he can fire anyone
that works in the executive department for cause. He can also order investigations or hire
people who will launch real investigations.
Mr. President, if you want to "drain the swamp," drain it.
If there was a video it would of been leaked during the election, they have nothing that
sticks on the guy.
All the evidence thus far states
Obama Hillary the FBI, DNC, CIA all spied on Trump and colluded with foreign governments
(U.K. , Ukraine , Russia) to try and dig up dirt to use against Trump (and they more or less
failed).
They turned over every rock they could, look at that stupid hot-mic video in the bus, how
many hours of video did they have to go through to dig up that crumb? they went back
searching through 30+ years of content and thats all they could come up with.... some locker
room talk lol
People have to just face it.
Your government was and still is corrupt and its a weaponized system of control, Your
government colluded with the enemy in a desperate attempt to stop Trump from becoming
president. Your government started a sham "Russia investigation" to cover up its own crimes.
Your government applied a different standard of justice to the clintons than it would have to
you or anyone else.
To date ZERO evidence has been brought forward that Trump or anyone in his campaign did
anything wrong, and the only people that have done anything wrong so far were picked by "the
swamp" to fill positions..... all the others fell into petty perjury Traps on meaningless
topics and insignificant factoids.
Isn't it lovely to find out that your money and mine is being used by government agents to
give us the government they want?
It's sort of like a thug robbing you and using part of your money to pay another thug to
rough you up from time time to time if you ask any questions with the thugs believing it's
for our own good.
Thanks, Hillary, for looking out for us. You and your best buds are the best. Such
bighearted givers! Meanwhile, give our regards to your partner in slime Obama, although it
must pain you to have been bested by 'Beavis' who thinks so much of himself to balance out
how little he impresses anyone who knows him.
"U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can
call off the hounds.
Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of
power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this
himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it...
As taxpayers can we sue the CIA for misusing our funds? Pretty sure that buying sex videos
for commercial release isn't part of the CIA's lawful mandate even at bargain prices.
Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US
intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on
their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own
treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big
bad russkies tricked us.
my sauces tell me that pink pussyhat wearing hollywood types have been called in because
they have a doppelganger for trump and access to 30,000 sexually abused victims that can act
as Russian prostitutes for just ten bucks each. snapchat has a trump emoji that can be transplanted onto any porn video star - male or
female - thus confirming that trump is a serial (serious?) user of ladies of the night
my sauces also tell me that the CIA offers a reward of 100,000 bucks (or 10 BTC) for every
photo-shopped (snap-shopped or porn-shopped) material.
of course, the CIA already owns many many porn movie studios and films, but it would
prefer third "party" movies - not from epstein's island where its operatives choose to rela
with a pizza.
the CIA "pink" budget for such movies is limited to just 5,000 clips or 5 billion of
taxpayers funds, whichever is the higher.
'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the
Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it
hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly
elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope.
Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a
long shot.
i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds.
this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to
trump.
Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I
copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a
cloth."
And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but
my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works.
So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and
more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers
for procurers of hosebags for him to screw?
I mean if they're so concerned about Trump and a couple of hookers... Better put some ice on that, CIA.
You all are so ridiculous and fooled with your "drain the swamp" bs. It's a great idea but
Trump doing it is a joke, I mean just look at who he has hired, what's wrong with you all are
you blind?!!
He can't even fill 1/3 of the government positions he's supposed to and the ones he has
have no business holding the positions given to them and are so incompetent, downright
criminal or just personally horrendous humans that they can't stay in office more than a few
months. All their blatant and moronically concocted lies are backing them into corners every
day that they just try and lie out of again. America is over if we really have gotten to the
point that a group like Trump's has support, it's just astonishing.
Color revolution is a military operation in which protesters are just a tip of the iceberg. the key
players are Embassy staff, three letter agencies, NGOs, bought and foreign owned neoliberal press,
some oligarchs (who might be pressed into submission with the threat of confiscating their
assets), compradors and bought players within the government.
The initial crash with police was organized by one of such players (supposedly Lyovochkin). One of the key instruments were huge cash
flows in diplomatic mail that feed the protest ("bombing country with dollars"). In a
sense in any neoliberal republic color revolution is designed to be a success, the fact which
EuroMaidan proved quite convincingly.
Ukraine actually was a very easy target. Yanukovich was
essentially neutralized and paralyzed by threats from Biden. Security services were
infiltrated and partially work for Americans. Several bought members of the government (Lyovochkon?)
did their dirty job in organizing the necessity clashes with policy to feed the protest.
Notable quotes:
"... The script writers of the Maidan, in his opinion, were Americans. ..."
Former Prime Minister Azarov explained his version of events on the Maidan. The script
writers of the Maidan, in his opinion, were Americans.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov told the NTV about how coup d'état of February of
the last year was organized. According to him, the script of the coup d'état was written at the
U.S. Embassy.
"The main puppeteers were not on the Maidan," Azarov said. The protests started because of the
decision of Ukrainian authorities to suspend the signing of the Association agreement with the EU.
"There was, of course, the enormous pressure from the leaders of the European Union, from
several European countries. The meaning of this pressure was the fact that we must put aside
all doubts and to sign this agreement," said the former Prime Minister. "They just needed an
excuse, a reason to overthrow our government. Because we were frankly told: "If you do not you sign
this agreement, it will sign another government, another President,"
In this regard, according to Azarov, they needed a provocation to start protest and such a
provocation became the use of force on Independence square in Kiev, where supporters of European
integration were staying for several nights. "The action was slow. The organizers understood
that without the sacred victims they will be unable to ignite the crowd. Suddenly around 3 am
several TV crews arrive, set lights, camera. What to shoot? This ordinary situation, when people
spend the night at the square?" - said Azarov.
Ukrainian people were cynically played. According to Azarov at this moment
"prepared by gunmen in masks" arrived to the square. They started beating on duty policemen with
metal sticks. When police called reinforcements instigators quickly disappeared. And when riot
police began detention, "they detain generally innocent people who spend night at the square as a
part of peaceful protest."
Speaking about the negotiations Yanukovich with the opposition, Azarov noted that the current
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk "every day spend most of his time in the American Embassy and
following their instructions to the letter."
In the end, an agreement was signed between the President and opposition leaders on the peaceful
resolution of the conflict, the guarantor which were several European countries, but no one except
the Yanukovich, fulfilled their obligations. "I still do not understand, how foreign Ministers of
Poland, Germany, France, which signed an agreement on February 21 feel themselves. In the history
of diplomacy this agreement will be included as an example of the utmost degree of cynicism and
deceit," said Azarov.
"... Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies. ..."
The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations
as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
America's hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist
organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted
countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State
property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.
The economic dimensions of this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These
military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific
countries in all major regions of World.
Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization.
Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which
consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.
In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995,
evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely
into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the
developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland,
etc, have been the target of sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.
The global economic crisis is intimately related to America's hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a spiralling defense budget
backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. "War is Good for Business": the powerful financial groups which routinely
manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war.
A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.
Beyond the Globalization of Poverty
Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic
reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the
"globalization of poverty": countries are transformed in open territories,
State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad
sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy, all of which ultimately leads
to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire
populations (refugee crisis).
This "second stage" goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial
institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of a process of outright destruction
of human life.
In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force
of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.
The New World Order
Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are
Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds
and secret accounts,
the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major "defense contractors", security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits,
on contract to the Pentagon;
the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,
The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;
Big Pharma,
The Communication Giants and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.
There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.
These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence. The state
structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the "Deep State", integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks,
secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate
interests.
In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, trade unions, political parties.
What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy
to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.
Media Propaganda
The corporate media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops
oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian
narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.
Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.
Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus
at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding
the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.
Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development
There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era,
the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as
well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.
In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union.
Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.
The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial
apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial
trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar
speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians,
civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It's called corruption, co-optation, fraud.
Latin America: The Transition towards a "Democratic Dictatorship"
In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e.
a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded.
They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.
Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of the entire Latin America region.
In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup
in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated
in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the "Dirty war" and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.
The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged.
Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.
Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of "dirty tricks" including acts of
infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social
divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate
and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money
laundering and the protection of the drug trade.
The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua,
May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky
by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)
"... North Stream is a problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support
our new client state -- Ukraine. ..."
"... But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of this
alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad ..."
Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipeline will not be enough leverage on Germany
as it provides 9% of their needs.
Yes. And that's against the USA interests (or more correctly the US-led neoliberal empire interests). North Stream is a
problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support our new client state
-- Ukraine.
As you know, nothing was proven yet in Russiagate (and DNC hacks looks more and more like a false flag operation, especially
this Guccifer 2.0 personality ), but sanctions were already imposed. And when the US government speaks "Russia" in most cases
they mean "China+Russia" ;-). Russia is just a weaker link in this alliance and, as such, it is attacked first. Russiagate is
just yet another pretext after MH17, Magnitsky and such.
To me the current Anti-Russian hysteria is mainly a smokescreen to hide attempt to cement cracks in the façade of the USA neoliberal
society that Trump election revealed (including apparent legitimization of ruling neoliberal elite represented by Hillary).
And a desperate attempt to unite the society using (false) war propaganda which requires demonization of the "enemy of the
people" and neo-McCarthyism.
But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of
this alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad (for example, military alliance means the end of the USA global
military domination; energy alliance means that is now impossible to impose a blockade on China energy supplies from Middle East
even if Iran is occupied)
In this sense the recent descent into a prolonged fit of vintage Cold War jingoistic paranoia is quite understandable. While,
at the same time, totally abhorrent. My feeling is that unless Russia folds, which is unlikely, the side effects/externalities
of this posture can be very bad for the USA. In any case, the alliance of Russia and China which Obama administration policies
forged spells troubles to the global neoliberal empire dominated by the USA.
Trump rejection of existing forms of neoliberal globalization is one sign that this process already started and some politicians
already are trying to catch the wind and adapt to a "new brave world" by using preemptive adjustments.
Which is why all this Trump-Putin summit hysteria is about.
Neither hard, nor soft neoliberals want any adjustments. They are ready to fight for the US-led neoliberal empire till the
last American (excluding, of course, themselves and their families)
Just like the Muslim freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's courageous stand against the
fascist duopoly's attempt to crush her for daring to not back down from calling AIPAC a foreign
lobby was a watershed moment in confronting the uncritical support of a RW Israeli government,
Greenwald's blistering takedown of fellow journalist David Cay Johnston, and by extension the
entire American MSM, is another watershed moment in the growing divide between media
corporatists (Neoliberals & Neocons), who are straining themselves to keep afloat a Duopoly
system that could arguably be called fascism which has been in place since at least the turn of
the century (if not longer), and the surging dissidents who see this as the fundamental problem
above all else.
The Red Herring Russia Hysteria Meltdown turned out to be a proxy battle between the few
dissenters who believe that the capitalist Duopoly is the real problem (with Money In Politics
being the cement that keeps it together) and have never bought into this farce; and the many
mainstream media lapdogs, $hillary zombies and Democratic Party loyalists who concocted and
desperately wanted needed to believe it. They completely melted down to lose all
sense of reason and rationale in their hyperventilation to keep propped up the rotting edifice
of a party and system within which those players have been able to continue getting rich from
and to go merrily believing that dutifully voting for the Lesser of Two Evils is the full
enshrinement of the Greatest Democracy Money Can Buy In The World .
The idea that electioneering, which is what placing ads is (even a minuscule amount), could
be conflated with collusion by a foreign government to steal an election, was so laughably
outrageous. Furthermore, to imply that our elections were so pure and that we didn't do such
things around the world ourselves (despite that the CIA had brutally intervened in over 50 elections
globally ), just put the icing on our incredulity. As for Trump's criminality, there was
plenty of that to go around. But where was the media to thoroughly vet him during the campaign?
Nowhere in sight, or rather televising gawking at his non-stop, car crash porn of a
campaign which was driving advertising dollars into their pockets. But we were supposed to
believe they suddenly got into gear once he was elected and became these super sleuths? What a
fucking joke.
There were only a relative handful of us who never believed this infuriating garbage.
Virtually the entire MSM engaged in one of the worst, most embarrassing examples of propaganda
the country has ever seen, as Taibbi writes here and
here. It confoundingly gripped even some of the smarter people we all knew. Lost to
propaganda. But then they ultimately lost, big-time.
What was at risk? Only nuclear war with Russia. And, just as consequential, this farce took
up all the air in the room, spreading false hope to demented $hillary losers who could be found
whimpering on their couches curled up in the fetal position in front of MSNBC every night, a
bottle of white wine atop the magazines on the coffee table. One could gather up a trove of
issues that weren't talked about at all by the MSM, including the massive teacher's strikes
happening all over the country, continued health insurance nightmares, the existential threat
of climate change, rampant poverty, widespread depressed wages and overworking, Yemen, Trump's
outrageously corrupt cabinet and their massive power grabs, etc., etc., etc.
It is right now that this country, and especially its journalists, have to have a
completely honest existential dialogue about what has been going on, how we got here, who is
responsible and what is driving it (which we know will probably never come, though there are
some signs of admission, which I've started to compile for another essay).
For this reason, the interview really has to be seen to be experienced. The anger at all
this just wells up in Greenwald and he really doesn't hold back. As we know he's long been one
of the very quickest-minded, most cogent and incisive journalists of this era. Under normal
circumstances few can withstand his sheer power of his lightning intellect. This poor shlub,
who has written some really good things about income inequality and Wall St criminality but
carried on the lie, was so justifiably exposed for his dumb stance and continued obstinacy
about it.
But if you're short for time here's some of the best segments (though you really should see
Greenwald's disgust).
He lit into Rachel Maddow, the MSM and the Democratic Party. He slammed the highest rated
liberal show host who "every single night misled millions of liberals into believing something
that was totally false," calling that decision "extremely grave and serious," and saying that
"there will be no reckoning and consequences for this story that the media got radically,
fundamentally and deliberately wrong for almost three years now in a very dangerous way."
(all emphasis mine)
This is the saddest media spectacle I've ever seen, since I began practicing journalism in
2005. And what makes it even sadder is to watch all of the people who vested their
journalistic credibility into what proved to be a complete and total fraud and scam continue
to try and cling to some vestige of credibility by continuing to spin conspiracy theories
that are even more reckless and more unhinged than the ones to which we've been subjected for
three years .
... I believe that Donald Trump is one of the most corrupt people ever to occupy the White
House. I am certain that he's guilty of all kinds of crimes -- war crimes as president,
financial crimes as a business person. One of the reasons why those of us who were so angry
about this obsession on Russia and collusion, aside from the fact that it was so dangerous to
ratchet up tensions between two nuclear-armed powers this way instead of trying to forge a
peace between these two countries, is precisely because it took the oxygen away from all of
the things that the Trump administration is doing that is so damaging, in lieu of this
idiotic, moronic, Tom Clancy-type espionage thriller, where we were talking about Putin
blackmailing Donald Trump with pee-pee tapes and Donald Trump being a Russian agent since
1987, which was a cover story that was on New York magazine, that Chris Hayes put on MSNBC.
Just all kinds of moronic conspiracies, that we love to mock other countries' medias for
circulating and disseminating, drowned out our airwaves and our discourse for three years,
preventing us from focusing on the real, substantive damage that the Trump administration is
doing and that Donald Trump's corruption entails.
He eviscerated Johnston's mealy-mouthed walk backs and continued spinning of this through
the course of the interview, and the proxy MSM:
But the reality is, the media chose to focus on this. Everybody knows this. David Cay
Johnston was on your show, Amy, a week ago, and he said, "Donald Trump, I believe, is a
Russian agent." We now have a full-scale, 20-month investigation by somebody that everybody
agreed was a man of great integrity who would get to the bottom of all of this, who had full
subpoena power. And David keeps trying to imply, which is totally false, that all that
Mueller said was, "Oh, it just doesn't rise to the level of criminality." That is not what he
said. He said, after 20 months of a full-scale investigation -- which, by the way, included
hours of interrogating Donald Trump Jr. before Congress, all of the transcripts of which were
made available to Mueller, which he could have prosecuted Trump Jr. on for perjury and
obstruction had Donald Trump Jr. lied about anything, but he chose not to. He said, "After
reviewing all of this evidence, I am concluding that this did not happen," not that it
doesn't rise to the level where I can criminally prosecute. He's saying there was no
collusion.
The game is over, and it's time to be honest about it. And the more we try to cling to
this and invent new -- you know what it reminds me of? In 2003, when the neocons finally had
to face the truth that there were no WMDs, that they had fabricated that, that the media had
misled millions of people around the world for years, and they started saying, "Um, maybe
Saddam hid them in Syria. Maybe they're buried in places we just haven't looked yet." It's
time to face the truth. The media got this story wrong. They obsessed on this for three
years, and all this time there was no evidence for it. It was just a conspiracy theory.
Rachel Maddow, the most influential liberal TV host in the country, every single night misled
millions of liberals into believing something that was totally false, and there will be no
media consequences for it. And that is extremely grave and serious, no matter how much is
true about how corrupt Donald Trump is in his financial dealings or any of the other stuff
that people are now trying to deflect our attention onto.
Then he turned to the fundamental questions of the actual election, never discussed in the
MSM:
Why did millions of people vote for a complete joke of a game show host? And how did the
Democrats lose the presidency to one of the most embarrassing spectacles of a candidate in
U.S. history? What is the prevailing ideology of the ruling class that has turned millions
and millions of people, and to this country, into such angry citizens that they either refuse
to vote or vote for the person who promises to burn down the entire system? Why are they so
angry? What has happened to their economic security? What ideology and what group of people
are responsible for that? What has Donald Trump been doing in realigning the United States
away from the Western Europe and to Saudi despots, and the collusion that actually happened,
which was from the Israeli government during the election in order to undermine Obama's
policies? All those kinds of questions could have been asked and should have been asked, but
it all got drowned out because we were all so much more fascinated by this superficial, kind
of very appealing and melodramatic espionage thriller, that has completely destroyed the
credibility of the U.S. media and so tragically vindicated Donald Trump in a way that
probably is the greatest gift that has been given to him throughout his entire
presidency.
When reminded that last year Chomsky said the rest of the world was looking at our media's
obsession that Russia's meddling in the election helped Trump was a "joke", he said this:
Well, that's been the other critical point this entire time, is this kind of melodrama
over the outrage that any country would dare to interfere in our sacred and glorious
democracy, when, as Noam Chomsky just pointed out and has spent the last 40 years pointing
out, the United States has done very little since the end of World War II but going around
the world and interfering in every single democracy that they can find , literally, including
the country in which I'm currently living, which is Brazil, where they overthrew a
democratically elected government in 1964 and then proceeded to impose a military regime for
21 years, and also Russia, where they openly boasted about helping to elect Boris Yeltsin
because he would privatize everything and that would be good for U.S. industry, or even
agitating anti-Putin resistance in parliamentary elections under Hillary Clinton's reign as
secretary of state .
This doesn't make it right for Russia to do it, but we've never kept in perspective the
fact that interfering or meddling in other countries' elections or governance is not some
grave, aberrational, never-before-heard drama that the entire world has to stop and lament
and put an end to. It's normal business. We're currently, right now, in the process of trying
to change the government of Venezuela openly, and have done so over and over around the
world. And that's why Noam Chomsky says that all of this moral outrage of Americans at the
idea that somebody would interfere in or meddle in our democracy has made the U.S. a
laughingstock to the hundreds of millions of people -- billions, in fact -- who live in
countries where the U.S. has done this and far, far worse for decade after decade after
decade .
Painting the pig's face
1. The left never had a dog in this race. This was always an in-house squabble between
different wings of the establishment. Late-stage capitalism is in terminal crisis, and the
biggest problem facing our corporate elites is how to emerge from this crisis with their
power intact. One wing wants to make sure the pig's face remains painted, the other is happy
simply getting its snout deeper into the trough while the food lasts...
The leaders of the Democratic party are less terrified of Trump and what he represents
than they are of us and what we might do if we understood how they have rigged the political
and economic system to their permanent advantage.
It may look like Russiagate was a failure, but it was actually a success. It deflected the
left's attention from endemic corruption within the leadership of the Democratic party, which
supposedly represents the left. It rechannelled the left's political energies instead towards
the convenient bogeymen targets of Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Mired in corruption
What Mueller found -- all he was ever going to find -- was marginal corruption in the
Trump camp. And that was inevitable because Washington is mired in corruption. In fact, what
Mueller revealed was the most exceptional forms of corruption among Trump's team while
obscuring the run-of-the-mill stuff that would have served as a reminder of the endemic
corruption infecting the Democratic leadership too.
An anti-corruption investigation would have run much deeper and exposed far more. It would
have highlighted the Clinton Foundation, and the role of mega-donors like James Simons,
George Soros and Haim Saban who funded Hillary's campaign with one aim in mind: to get their
issues into a paid-for national "consensus".
Further, in focusing on the Trump camp -- and relative minnows like Paul Manafort and
Roger Stone -- the Russiagate inquiry actually served to shield the Democratic leadership
from an investigation into the much worse corruption revealed in the content of the DNC
emails.
Trump empowered
2. But it's far worse than that. It is not just that the left wasted two years of
political energy on Russiagate. At the same time, they empowered Trump, breathing life into
his phoney arguments that he is the anti-establishment president, a people's president the
elites are determined to destroy...
The other wing of the neoliberal establishment, the one represented by the Democratic
party leadership, fears that exposing capitalism in this way -- making explicit its
inherently brutal, wrist-slitting tendencies -- will awaken the masses, that over time it
will risk turning them into revolutionaries. Democratic party leaders fear Trump chiefly
because of the threat he poses to the image of the political and economic system they have so
lovingly crafted so that they can continue enriching themselves and their children.
The whole thing is excellent. You should read it.
There is a serious reckoning going on right now. Call 'em what you will,
Neoliberals/Corporatists/Beltway/Necons, are being exposed for all-time. The curtain is off the
hooks on its way down.
The whole Red Herring RussiaGate Hysteria Meltdown strikes me as this:
It was concocted first and foremost as a distraction from the shock suffered by Hillary
fans and the MSM that HRC was such a horrible, highly disliked and untrustworthy candidate,
and that she pathetically lost to a candidate with the same characteristics in a contest of
who was absolutely just a little less detested than the other. The scorned $hillary
sycophants, who willfully refused to step outside the bubble of It's Her Turn - All Things
Hillary world, had their hubris so shaken, rattled and rolled that for their sanity, and by
extension the rest of the country who also believed that ours wasn't such a rotting system
that could upchuck a demented clown like Trump, they had to insist blame lie elsewhere
(racism, Russia, etc) than their laughably horrible campaign and a roiling disgust with
politics as usual.
The mass hysteria of Trump/Russia shooting out like a fire hydrant every night on cable
tv and social media was also designed as the perfect foil for covering up the flagrant and
brazen collusion to cheat Bernie out of the nomination. "Who cares about that, when we have a
president illegally occupying the White House as a puppet of Putin?" All of the legitimate
evidence of electoral fraud, voter roll purges, caucus cheating, insider collusion, paid
media hatchet jobs, etc (in other words, everything the Repubs are charged with but that the
DNC did to Bernie) got buried under this avalanche. This is probably the thing that'll remain
most enraging to me: all of that massive, genuine support for a movement candidate viciously
torn to pieces, having the effect of a whole next generation of folks crippled in their
belief about electoral politics.
Secondarily, this also served as the perfect cover, taking up all the air in the room, to
having the discussion about our entire election process. Beginning with the elephant in the
room: "how did it come this - first of all, that the two most hated candidates were our only
choices (most people never consider a third party, which is a whole other subject)? The 2016
election process should have ripped the mask off of the false pride we have in our decrepitly
corrupt elections, in which the whole process has been nothing more than an Auction House to
the Highest Bidder, at every level. Then there's the "electoral college," the private
national committees running the parties' elections, the debate limitations, "superdelegates,"
gerrymandering, no active and real membership in either party (only an expectation usually
driven by fear and threat, that you blindly keep showing up to vote for your party).
It was also a huge, wildly lame gambit to inure the Democrats from having to address the
real issues that are effecting people, hoping instead to be able to run again only as "We're
Not Trump." Poll after poll showed most Americans could care less about Russia , with almost
every issue polling higher.
The Mueller deification was also a natural reaction by a soft and pampered American
people who have been conditioned to look for heroes to swoop in and make everything ok
again, as can be found in a child's fable. Nobody wants to do the hard work anymore of
being civilly engaged, informed and asking questions. Consumerism, social media
self-aggrandizement and 24/7 entertainment have replaced it.
This was the Democrats lazy way out, which was the perfect foil for a lazy citizenry who
have come to expect coddling in every aspect of their lives. It was also what they're
expected to do on behalf of their donors. Few can be bothered to be involved civically in
any way, show up in person to support an oppressed or marginalized faction (not just sign
an online petition). A lot of this simply boiled down to a salient truth few wanted to
accept: that almost all politicians are paid to do as little as possible for the people,
biding their time in office ruffling as few feathers as possible, for the express purpose
of then re-entering the political world as lobbyists so that they can enrich their campaign
donors exponentially after they've learned the ropes inside.
It's so obvious why most Bernie supporters, but not all - because a good bit fell into
the all-consuming MSM trap of Russia propaganda and became afflicted with Trump Derangement
Syndrome, never bought into this ludicrous bullshit. They had endured being firsthand
witnesses to the rampant election fraud being pulled by the DNC during the 2106 primary, of
which the MSM completely and utterly turned a blind eye. If it was possible that the media
could collude in that way, then it was possible that the media could do the same for the
opposite.
The irony of it still stings: the media with its resources could have easily turned up
easily verifiable evidence of tampering and kinds of fraud during the DNC primary; but
instead they went all in for the most absurd and ridiculous hare-brained scheme that the
Orange Buffoon was the one who colluded with Russia to steal the election. If any of these
Beltway, cocktail party lapdogs had just once ventured out of their gated communities and
conventional thinking to be bothered to visit the heartland they would have seen that the
country was in the midst of a populist revolution, most prominently dominated by support
for Bernie Sanders but also to a slightly lesser degree for Drumpf.
There's a major chasm starting to split the land, between those who cling to the myth of
American Exceptionalism and fealty to the two political parties of the Duopoly, and a
burgeoning movement of people distrustful of the power structure and its propaganda to hide the
truth about a dying system.
"... Among the scope memo's few unredacted lines are allegations regarding Paul Manafort's "colluding with Russian government officials to interfere with the 2016 elections." The only known source for those allegations is the Steele dossier. What that strongly suggests is that under those redactions are other fabricated allegations that were also drawn from the Clinton-funded smear campaign -- a dirty-tricks operation that was led by Fusion GPS founder and conspiracy theorist Glenn Simpson. ..."
"... Saturday Night Live ..."
"... While the length of Mueller's investigative process may have protected the FBI from the president's immediate rage, the release of the report has exposed the deep corruption and personal narcissism of the press and its professional networks of "experts" and "sources." ..."
"... Russiagate was an information operation from the beginning, in which dozens of individual reporters and institutions actively partnered with paid political operatives like Glenn Simpson and corrupt law enforcement and intelligence officials like former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr to smear Trump and his circle, and then to topple him. None of what went on the last two years would have been possible without the press, an indispensable partner in the biggest political scandal in a generation. ..."
It will take weeks for the elite pundit class to unravel all the
possible implications and subtexts embedded in Robert Mueller's final report on the charge that
Donald Trump and his team colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election. The right claims that
the report exonerates Trump fully, while the left contends there are lots of nuggets in the
full text of the final report that may point to obstruction of justice, if not collusion.
But here's all you need to know about the special counsel probe:
First, after nearly two years, the special counsel found no credible evidence of collusion.
It found no credible evidence of a plot to obstruct justice, to hide evidence of collusion. The
entire collusion theory, which has formed the center of elite political discourse for over two
years now, has been publicly and definitely proclaimed to be a hoax by
the very person on whom news organizations and their chosen "experts" and "high-level sources"
had so loudly and insistently pinned their daily, even hourly, hopes of redemption.
Mueller should have filed his report on May 18, 2017 -- the day after the special counsel
started and he learned the FBI had opened an investigation on the sitting president of the
United States because senior officials at the world's premier law enforcement agency thought
Trump was a Russian spy. Based on what evidence? A dossier compiled by a former British spy,
relying on second- and third-hand sources,
paid for by the Clinton campaign .
Instead, the special counsel lasted 674 days, during which millions of people who believed
Mueller was going to turn up conclusive evidence of Trump's devious conspiracies with the
Kremlin have become wrapped up in a collective hallucination that has destroyed the remaining
credibility of the American press and the D.C. expert class whose authority they promote.
Mueller knew that he wasn't ever going to find "collusion" or anything like it because all
the intercepts were right there on his desk. As it turned out, two of his prosecutors,
including Mueller's so-called "pit bull," Andrew Weissman, had been briefed on the
Steele dossier prior to the 2016 election and were told that it came from the Clintons, and was
likely a biased political document.
Weissman left, or was pushed out of, his employment with the special counsel a few weeks
ago, after the arrival of a new attorney general, William Barr, who had deep experience in
government, including stints at the Justice Department and the CIA. Knowing what we know now,
here's what seems most likely to have just happened: Barr looked at the underlying documents on
which Mueller's investigation was based. First, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's May
17, 2017, memo appointing the former FBI director to take supervision of the FBI's
investigation of Trump. And more importantly, the Aug. 2, 2017,
memo from Rosenstein outlining the scope of the investigation.
Among the scope memo's few unredacted lines are allegations regarding Paul Manafort's
"colluding with Russian government officials to interfere with the 2016 elections." The only
known source for those allegations is the Steele dossier. What that strongly suggests is that
under those redactions are other fabricated allegations that were also drawn from the
Clinton-funded smear
campaign -- a dirty-tricks operation that was led by Fusion GPS founder and conspiracy
theorist Glenn Simpson.
And now, after all the Saturday Night Live skits, the obscenity-riddled Bill Maher
and Stephen Colbert routines, the half a million news stories and tens of millions of tweets
all foretelling the end of Trump, the comedians and the adult authority figures are exposed as
hoaxsters, or worse, based on evidence that was always transparently phony.
The Mueller report is in. But the abuse of power that the special counsel embodied is a
deadly cancer on American democracy. Two years of investigations have left families in ruins,
stripping them of their savings, their homes, threatening their liberty, and dragging their
names through the mud. The investigation of the century was partly based on the possibility
that Michael Flynn, a combat veteran who served his country for more than three decades, might
be a Russian spy -- because of a dinner he once attended in Moscow, and because as incoming
national security adviser he spoke to the Russian ambassador to Washington. What rot.
While the length of Mueller's investigative process may have protected the FBI from the
president's immediate rage, the release of the report has exposed the deep corruption and
personal narcissism of the press and its professional networks of "experts" and "sources."
Instead of providing medicine, the press chose instead to spread the disease through a body
that was already badly weakened by the advent of "free" digital media
. Only, it
wasn't free .
* * *
The media criticism of the media's performance covering Russiagate is misleadingly anodyne
-- OK, sure the press did a bad job, but to be fair there really was a lot of suspicious stuff
going on and now let's all get back to doing our important work. But two years of false and
misleading Russiagate coverage was not a mistake, or a symptom of lax fact-checking.
Russiagate was an information operation from the beginning, in which dozens of individual
reporters and institutions actively partnered with paid political operatives like Glenn Simpson
and corrupt law enforcement and intelligence officials like former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe and senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr to smear Trump and his circle, and then to topple him.
None of what went on the last two years would have been possible without the press, an
indispensable partner in the biggest political scandal in a generation.
The campaign was waged not in hidden corners of the internet, but rather by the country's
most prestigious news organizations -- including, but not only, The New York Times , the
Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC. The farce that has passed for public discourse the
last two years was fueled by a concerted effort of the media and the pundit class to
obscure gaping holes in logic as well as law. And yet, they all appeared to be credible
because the institutions sustaining them are credible .
... ... ...
Americans still want and need accurate information on which to base their decisions about
their own lives and the path that the country should take. But neither the legacy media nor the
expert class it sustains is likely to survive the post-dossier era in any
recognizable form . For them, Russiagate is an extinction level event.
"... "I'm sorry for calling the Russiagaters idiots, morons, drooling imbeciles, stupid, gullible sheep, foam-brained human livestock, tinfoil pussyhat-wearing delusional conspiracy theorists, demented cold war-enabling McCarthyite bootlickers, oafish slug-headed slime creatures, energy-sucking, CIA-coddling wastes of space and oxygen, and an embarrassment to the human species" ..."
"... " He then put on a pair of sunglasses and rode off on a motorcycle due east into the rising sun, while the smooth notes of a single saxophone resounded through the D.C. cityscape." ..."
The report contains many shocking revelations which prove that Attorney General William Barr
deceived the world in his summary of its contents, as astute Trump-Russia collusion theorists
have been
claiming since it emerged .
For example, while Barr's excerpted quote from the report may read like a seemingly
unequivocal assertion, "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump
Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference
activities," it turns out that the full sentence reads very differently:
" It is totally not the case that the investigation did not establish that members of
the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election
interference activities."
The following sentence is even more damning: "It definitely did establish that that
happened."
The report goes on to list the evidence for numerous acts of direct conspiracy between
Trump allies and the Russian government, including a detailed description of the footage from
an obtained copy of the notorious "kompromat" video, in which Trump is seen paying Russian
prostitutes to urinate on a bed once slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama, as well as other
documents fully verifying the entire Christopher Steele dossier which was published by
BuzzFeed in January 2017.
Other evidence listed in the report includes communication transcripts in which Russian
President Vladimir Putin is seen ordering President Trump to bomb Syria, stage a coup in
Venezuela, arm Ukraine, escalate against Russia in America's Nuclear Posture Review, withdraw
from the INF treaty and the Iran deal, undermine Russia's fossil fuel interests in Germany,
expand NATO, and maintain a large military presence near Russia's border.
... ... ...
Obviously I owe the world a very big apology. I'm sorry for calling the Russiagaters idiots, morons, drooling imbeciles,
stupid, gullible sheep, foam-brained human livestock, tinfoil pussyhat-wearing delusional conspiracy theorists, demented cold
war-enabling McCarthyite bootlickers, oafish slug-headed slime creatures, energy-sucking, CIA-coddling wastes of space and
oxygen, and an embarrassment to the human species. Clearly, because of their indisputable vindication this April the first 2019,
they are definitely none of these things.
RightLineBacker, (Edited)
After recovering from a near heart attack...and loading my weapons in preparation of taking to the streets... I noticed it
was April 1st. Funny & not funny at the same time.
Damn! Back to my beer & popcorn.
desertboy
"I'm sorry for calling the Russiagaters idiots, morons, drooling imbeciles, stupid, gullible sheep, foam-brained human
livestock, tinfoil pussyhat-wearing delusional conspiracy theorists, demented cold war-enabling McCarthyite bootlickers,
oafish slug-headed slime creatures, energy-sucking, CIA-coddling wastes of space and oxygen, and an embarrassment to the
human species"
Me too. It's worth repeating.
noshitsherlock
" He then put on a pair of sunglasses and rode off on a motorcycle due east into the rising sun, while the smooth
notes of a single saxophone resounded through the D.C. cityscape."
And then Stephen Cohen of The Nation , another voice of reason, sent me a copy of his
book, "
War With Russia? " It's a collection of his heretical writings about our new, unnecessary
Cold War, and the opening essay ,
adapted from a talk he gave in Washington D.C., made me ashamed of my silence.
"Some people who privately share our concerns -- again, in Congress, the media,
universities and think tanks -- do not speak out at all. For whatever
reason -- concern about being stigmatized, about their career, personal
disposition -- they are silent. But in our democracy, where the cost of dissent
is relatively low, silence is no longer a patriotic option," Cohen wrote, adding, "We
should exempt from this imperative young people, who have more to lose. A few have sought my
guidance, and I always advise, 'Even petty penalties for dissent in regard to Russia could
adversely affect your career. At this stage of life, your first obligation is to your family
and thus to your future prospects. Your time to fight lies ahead'."
Well, what was my excuse?
Special Prosecutor Robert S. Mueller has now turned in his findings, and there's not much
there. For weeks beforehand, mainstream media warned about this -- exhorting
readers against succumbing to feeling "disappointed".
Disappointed? I guess, as my friend Taibbi has noted , it would have
been an immense relief had the U.S. president been found to be a high-level traitor. We
could have all brought picnic lunches to his execution.
Right before the species-ending war with Russia.
In their fanatic loyalty to the narrative, what used to be my favorite media have stridently
reminded us that, Mueller aside, "it's not over!" The "focus of the investigation" will move
now to the New York prosecutors, to House committees. The American intelligentsia will
continue to dream up wild theories -- they'll be Scotch-taped on every vertical
surface, connected by bits of yarn and magic marker scribbles and hyperverbal mania.
The question now is, has the Mueller report finally freed up the rest of us to challenge the
more insane flights of fantasy? Or is it instead so close to the 2020 presidential
elections -- and so legally dangerous for some of the intelligence insiders who
have tried to bring down the president -- that skeptical journalists more than
ever will be bullied to keep silent?
Rootless Whataboutism
As a test case -- a first step on the road to journalistic recovery --
can I suggest we at least retire the insane, Orwellian term "whataboutism?"
Whataboutism really deserves consideration as a "Word of the Year", and not in a good way.
There have been multiple non-ironic media reports about this odious concept,
on NPR , in the
Huffington Post ,
in The Washington Post , you name it.
"His campaign may or may not have conspired with Moscow," The Washington Post
told us awhile back, "but President Trump has routinely employed a durable old Soviet
propaganda tactic 'whataboutism,' the practice of short-circuiting an argument by asserting
moral equivalency between two things that aren't necessarily comparable."
NPR's version also claims that whataboutism is a Soviet-tainted practice. "It's not exactly
a complicated tactic -- any grade-schooler can master the
'yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there' defense," NPR says. "But it came to be associated with the
USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and
afterward, as Russia."
Yet in my experience, it's not so much a Soviet tactic as an American one --
specifically, it's a way of demanding a loyalty oath to the anti-Trump resistance.
I have occasionally dared express skepticism about the entire overblown story that Russia
was involved in our 2016 elections at all. That's right. I don't buy it. I am not
entirely convinced that "Russian bots and trolls" infected anyone's mind by, say, taking
positions both for and against gun control after the Parkland high school mass shooting, or
by setting up
anti-masturbation hotlines , or by
giving bad reviews to "Star Wars: the Last Jedi."
I am also not entirely convinced that the Russians, having supposedly decided at the highest
levels of their government to try to sink Hilary Clinton's candidacy, couldn't think of
anything more clever than to spear-phish campaign manager John Podesta's G-mail.
Nor do I
share the concerns of The Times of London that the Russian animated cartoon "Masha
and the Bear" is part of a soft propaganda drive to weaken the minds of Estonian children ahead
of their eventual annexation by Red Army tanks.
Yet before I can even offer any subtler qualification of all this -- sure,
there is Russian-government, let's say, "illicit computer and social media activity" out there,
mixed with a lot of other noise signals (click-bait farms, which explains at least some of the
infamous Internet Research Agency's activities; ordinary Russians with pro-Kremlin positions
and personal Facebook accounts; and yes, people sitting on their beds who weigh 400 pounds),
but it has to be weighed against -- I'll be cut off.
"That's whataboutism ," I've been told flatly.
It's actually not -- that doesn't even meet the absurd quasi-official
definitions of this new Kafkaesque term -- but that's the whole point.
Disagreement is by its very nature whataboutist . Every skeptical question, after all,
could technically begin, "But what about ?"
Of course, it's far, far worse if I truly commit a whataboutism and -- God
forbid! God forbid! – I express curiosity about The New York Times
reporting about millions flowing to the Clintons and associated with the Russian purchase
of American uranium mines.
Whataboutism! It's so comparable to the old Soviet thought crimes --
Trotskyite, wrecker, cosmopolitan, rootless cosmopolitanism Every time I hear someone
flag a statement as guilty of whataboutism, I mentally add " rootless whataboutism."
People tell me Mueller missed the point. It's about Russian oligarch and Kremlin money,
invested in Trump real estate -- it's not over! All hail the Southern District
prosecutors! OK, let's see it, I'm open to that possibility. But if all Russian money is
tainted just because it's "oligarchical" -- good luck defining that
! -- then is it O.K. for the spouse of then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to
take $500,000 for a single hour's work, a speech in Moscow, for one of the most famous
"oligarch" banks?
"That's whataboutism! NPR and The Washington Post say that's a
Soviet-favored tactic! Your loyalty is thus suspect two-fold. Have you had contact with
any Russian nationals?"
Communists and Crickets
"EVIDENCE POINTS TO RUSSIA AS MAIN SUSPECT IN BRAIN INJURY ATTACKS ON DOZENS OF U.S.
DIPLOMATS" was the report by
MSNBC in September 2017, and they flogged that big scoop for months, and have never
really apologized for it.
Two dozen American diplomats in Cuba suffered headaches, dizziness and other vague symptoms
they blamed on strange sounds -- sounds some of them tape-recorded and supplied
to journalists, doctors and the government. "It sounds sort of like a mass of crickets," was
the opening line of the Associated Press report about the recordings (which you can
listen to yourself here ).
But no. Not crickets. As MSNBC reported, our intelligence services had intercepted
Russian communications (!) revealing the sounds were "some kind of microwave weapon,"
one so sophisticated that our top government minds were at a loss.
We might not know how it works, MSNBC reported, but we did know it was a weapon, and
"now Russia is the leading suspect."
"This is not an accident," reported anchorwoman Andrea Mitchell then. "This is not a
microwave listening device gone bad. This is an attack -- against American
diplomats and intelligence officers, and this was targeting."
What an amazing allegation. The Russian government was beaming a mysterious, high-tech
weapon at our citizens ; we had intercepted communications that made this
clear.
For more than a year, I and colleagues with Russia-reporting experience would be grilled
about this, and would just have to shrug apologetically. We just didn't know what to say. It
didn't make a lot of face-value sense -- why exactly would Russian agents, amid
all this rabid anti-Russia hysteria, beam a secret brain-frying weapon at two-dozen random
American diplomats and their family members in Cuba, for weeks apparently? What would be the
logic behind giving these random-seeming people headaches and making them dizzy and even
causing "brain injuries similar to concussions"?
As a physician, I also shared the s
kepticism of colleagues published about this in the Journal of the American Medical
Association. Playing odds, I agreed with those critics that I would have assumed either a
mass psychogenic illness or a viral infection more likely etiologies than a secret Siberian
death ray. I also read "brain injuries similar to concussions" as, "brain injuries that don't
show up on objective testing." (Of course, I've not examined any of these patients or reviewed
their cases so it's not for me to say.)
But in our fevered Russophobic environment, no one wanted to entertain alternative
scenarios -- after all, we don't even understand this sophisticated
weapon, which our intelligence agencies assure us (anonymously) they have intercepted Russian
communications bragging about, so how dare we debate the logic behind its use? (Maybe
this is how they control the president!)
Then three months ago, American scientists published in a peer-review journal their analysis
of the dastardly recordings and
identified the sounds : Crickets. Caribbean crickets.
Specifically, the echoing call of the male, short-tailed indies. During mating season.
But did MSNBC apologize, or retract?
Crickets.
Instead, during a historically cold week this winter, MSNBC star Rachel Maddow used
the excuse of a government panel about energy security to go on a Jack D. Ripper about Russia
someday deciding to freeze middle America to death.
"It is like negative 50 degrees in the Dakotas right now. What would happen if Russia killed
the power in Fargo today? What would happen if all the natural gas lines that service Sioux
Falls just 'poofed', on the coldest day in recent memories, and it wasn't in our power
whether or not to turn them back on?" Maddow asked. "What would you do if you lost heat indefinitely --
as the act of a foreign power! -- on the same day the temperature in
your front yard matched the temperature in Antarctica? I mean, what would you and your family
do?"
Gee, I don't know Rachel. What would my family and I do if Russia launched a nuclear weapon
at my front yard? I guess we'd all die. I guess I don't know who to trust anymore, I feel
exhausted by the news, sick of it all, I just want to stop caring, and you seem to feel the
same, and omigosh Rachel, we've been infected by the red virus!
'They Hate our Freedoms'
James Comey, the former FBI director, testified before the Senate after his firing that the
Russians are "coming after America," because, "They think that this great experiment of ours is
a threat to them, and so they're going to try to run it down and dirty it up as much as
possible."
Right. It's because "they hate our freedoms."
Where have I heard that before?
People had been waiting breathlessly for Mueller's report, but in reality, everything we
needed to know was right there in the first report -- the January 6, 2017, grand
announcement, the big reveal by our Intelligence Community -- the consensus of
CIA, FBI and NSA -- "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S.
Elections."
I remember finishing that report at the time and thinking:
Holy Cow, they have nothing.
Nothing!
Of the 15 pages with any meat to them in that report, seven were a long, bizarre complaint
about the existence and activities of RT (formerly RussiaToday ), the
Kremlin-sponsored English-language news channel.
Our intelligence agencies reported that RT has become "the most-watched foreign news
channel in the UK," had more YouTube viewers than the BBC or CNN , and was
surpassing al-Jazeera in New York and Washington D.C. ( Voice of America , which
is the U.S. government version of RT , has no sense of humor or passion and so no
viewers anywhere outside of Foggy Bottom.)
RT's success was, per the intelligence report, thanks to a combination of lavish
Kremlin funding and an alluring editorial slant. The intelligence report quoted RT's
editor as saying her station got lots of new viewers after offering sympathetic coverage of the
Occupy Wall Street movement. The intelligence report continued:
In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast,
hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the
political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does
not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham." RT's reports
often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread
infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use RT has also focused on
criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the
US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to Imperial Rome and
have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US financial
collapse RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts
on public health
This was hilarious of course -- a public snit by our intel communities about
Russians racking up big numbers among American viewers in Washington and New York , just
by offering mildly critical takes on drone killings and fracking and "alleged Wall Street
greed" ("alleged"? Really ?). We were promised a major assessment of any improper
Russian influences on our 2016 electoral process and we got -- this? A formal
complaint that Russian TV gave Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too much air time?
All this bitching and moaning about RT -- which, remember, is not some
secret plot, but just a public TV station you can go watch on YouTube or not watch
-- takes up well more than half of that grand intelligence community assessment.
It really speaks volumes about what was on their minds. And again, my conclusion reading it two
years ago was: So, they've got nothing.
The one caveat, though, was that there was a classified appendix. There's always a
classified appendix. So, who knew what was in that ? After all, immediately and in the
two years since, intelligence officials have occasionally been cited -- always
anonymously! --
in The Guardian ,
The New Yorker , and The
New York Times -- as claiming to have intercepted communications between the
Trump team and the Russian government.
Well, by now, we should realize the appendix is a myth.
First, we now know that
at least part of it -- and, I would guess, probably all of it --
was nothing more than the Steele report, the infamous document first posted on
BuzzFeed , that collection of anti-Trump opposition research paid for by the Hilary Clinton
campaign. (You know -- the pee tape stuff.)
And we now also know, courtesy of Robert Mueller's report, that there are no "intercepted
communications" between Russians and the Trump campaign teams. Just like there are no Russian
intercepts about secret Siberian brain-frying rays in Cuba, because that, again, was the mating
call of a short-tailed Caribbean cricket.
I don't know what's funnier about all of this -- and it is damned funny,
really -- the fact that all of this has actually happened , or the fact
that I feel the need to come out of journalistic retirement to help point it out.
A
President With a Traitor's Heart -- for Six More Years
And that's the way it is, and has been, all along for these past two years. There have been
non-stop media allegations that, one way or another, our narcissistic, loud-mouthed, overtly
racist U.S. president has a traitor's heart. Any errors or inaccuracies -- and
there have been a shocking number of retracted "scoops," as well as screwups like the Caribbean
crickets that have just been ignored -- are excused in service of this larger
truth: Our president has a traitor's heart.
But I already knew that! We all did!
We knew it the moment he said , "Russia, if you're listening, I
hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" -- referencing
some official e-mails of Hilary Clinton's that were improperly handled and got deleted. (Among
the onion layers of irony to this political season is that Trump pioneered the 21st century
witch hunt. There has never been any evidence that Clinton's deleted emails represent anything
at all -- yet Trump hammered away at this as if it mattered, until one day it
did. And he didn't even suggest investigations, he skipped straight to "lock her up!").
Being racist, or stupid, or sexist, or a bully, or a New York real estate developer
-- all of these are deep character flaws. They are not always crimes. (Sexually
assaulting someone is always a crime, however, even if you are a TV star and remember
your breath mints.)
And yet, again, we already knew all of this. Remember this transcript
from The New York Times ?
Trump : I did try and fuck her. She was married and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I
took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you
where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture -- I moved on
her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there.
Trump : Yeah, that's her [peeking out a trailer window at a different target, an
approaching actress] . I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You
know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them.
It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it.
You can do anything.
Billy Bush [a fawning minor TV personality] : Whatever you want.
Trump : Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.
I share your pain. And I have no doubt he'd trade his own son for majority ownership of a
moderately nice golf course. But I'm also, frankly, no longer very interested in him. I'm much
more interested in us -- the rest of us.
What happened to us?
Well, I'll amend that slightly. I am of course quite interested in seeing Donald Trump leave
office. I suspect, however, that these two-plus years of journalistic malpractice --
a politically-motivated Red Scare at a time when we don't even have any Reds anymore,
just Russians -- has locked in his second term. (What's that? Impeachment
you say? Oh please. He'd set up a government-in-exile in Mar-a-Lago and then he'd be around for
twenty more years instead of six. And he'd have half the nation with him the entire
time.) So thank you for that, MSNBC and NPR and New York Times.
"... Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, tweeted: "Time to investigate the Obama officials who concocted and spread the Russian conspiracy hoax!" Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, said "underlying documents" supporting what became Mueller's probe should be released to the public. ..."
"... A McCain associate, David Kramer, acknowledged in a deposition in a libel case that he spread word of the dossier to several news organizations. ..."
President Donald Trump and a key ally, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, said Monday that after Robert Mueller closed
his Russia probe, they want an investigation of the investigators.
Graham said at a news conference that Attorney General William Barr should appoint a new special counsel to examine why the U.S.
government, under President Barack Obama, decided to open an investigation into Russian election interference in 2016, and whether
it was an excuse to spy on Trump's campaign.
"Was it a ruse to get into the Trump campaign?" Graham said at the news conference. "I don't know but I'm going to try to find
out."
Trump told reporters at the White House that unspecified "people" behind the Russia probe would "be looked at."
The remarks show that Trump and some of his allies have retribution and score-settling on their minds after Mueller found no evidence
that the president or his campaign colluded with the Kremlin's election interference. It's unclear whom Trump wants investigated,
but possibilities include former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired in May 2017; Obama's CIA Director John Brennan, whom Trump
stripped of his security clearance last year; and other former intelligence and Justice Department officials who have vocally criticized
the president.
The stage is also set for dueling and contradictory congressional investigations. In the House, controlled by Democrats, several
committees have opened investigations into the president's financial and business affairs, and Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler
said Sunday he wants Barr to testify soon on his finding that Mueller didn't produce sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice
by interfering in the Russia inquiry.
The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, on Monday blocked a vote on a measure by the Democratic leader, Chuck
Schumer of New York, calling for Mueller's report to be made public. McConnell said Barr should have time to consider which portions
of the report can be publicly released given concerns about classified information, ongoing investigations and other information
protected by law.
Republican Allies
Several other Republicans backed Graham and Trump on Monday. Senate Oversight Committee Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said
he'd like to work with Graham "to get those answers for the American public."
"We need to find out what happened," he said in an interview.
Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, tweeted: "Time to investigate the Obama officials who concocted and spread the Russian
conspiracy hoax!" Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, said "underlying documents" supporting what became Mueller's
probe should be released to the public.
"Let them decide for themselves whether this investigation was warranted -- or whether it was a two-year long episode of political
targeting, driven by FBI and DOJ executives who wanted to retaliate against a legitimately elected president," Meadows said in an
interview.
Graham said his committee would also look into the FBI's handling of the inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server, saying that Comey's actions in that investigation "did affect" the 2016 election. Comey held a news
conference in July 2016 to announce that Clinton wouldn't be charged with a crime, and then announced less than two weeks before
the election that the investigation had been re-opened after additional emails were discovered.
'Evil Things'
Trump's indication that unnamed people responsible for the probe would be investigated was vague. He didn't name anyone, and after
he made similar remarks on Sunday, White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley told reporters that Barr hadn't been directed
to open any investigations of Democrats.
"People that have done such harm to our country," Trump complained on Monday. "We've gone through a period of really bad things
happening. Those people will certainly be looked at. I've been looking at them for a long time and I'm saying, why haven't they been
looked at. They lied to Congress. Many of them. You know who they are. They've done so many evil things."
Trump added that he hasn't considered pardoning anyone convicted in connection to Mueller's probe.
Graham said he planned to talk with Barr on Monday and hoped to hold a public hearing with the attorney general to explain his
findings in the Mueller probe. Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress on Sunday summarizing Mueller's findings, which have not
been publicly released.
"I'm asking him to lay it all out," Graham said.
Both Trump and Graham said they support Barr publicly releasing as much of Mueller's report as possible. The investigation turned
out "100 percent" as it should have, Trump told reporters.
Dossier Distribution
Trump has previously singled out individuals over their role in the probe, calling for an investigation into the "
other side " of the investigation. He's mentioned Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI employees Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, and Justice Department attorney Bruce Ohr.
Graham also said he advised his friend and Senate colleague John McCain to give the FBI the so-called Steele dossier on Trump,
rebutting the president's accusations that McCain tried to hinder his 2016 election.
Graham told reporters that McCain, an Arizona Republican who died last year, had shown him the unverified collection of intelligence
reports on Trump's links to Russia that was put together by a former British spy, Christopher Steele. Steele was commissioned to
compile the information by an opposition research firm hired by Democrats.
McCain put the dossier in his safe and handed it over to the FBI the next day, Graham said.
A McCain associate, David Kramer, acknowledged in a deposition in a libel case that he spread word of the dossier to several news
organizations.
-- With assistance by Billy House
( Updates with McConnell blocking Schumer measure in seventh paragraph. ) Published on March 25, 2019 12:37 PM
Updated on March 25, 2019 5:58 PM
So Russiagate smoothly transferred in Neo-McCarthyism and it will poison the US political atmosphere for a decade or two.
Notable quotes:
"... But as I foresaw well before the summary of Mueller's "Russia investigation" appeared, there is unlikely to be much, if any. Too many personal and organizational interests are too deeply invested in Russiagate. Not surprisingly, leading perpetrators instead immediately met the summary with a torrent of denials, goal-post shifts, obfuscations, and calls for more Russiagate "investigations." ..."
"... Clamorous allegations that the Kremlin "attacked our elections" and thereby put Trump in the White House, despite the lack of any evidence, cast doubt on the legitimacy of American elections ..."
"... Persistent demands to "secure our elections from hostile powers" -- a politically and financially profitable mania, it seems -- can only further abet and perpetuate declining confidence in the entire electoral process ..."
"... Still more, if some crude Russian social-media outputs could so dupe voters, what does this tell us about what US elites, which originated these allegations, really think of those voters, of the American people? ..."
"... Mainstream media are, of course, a foundational institution of American democracy, especially national ones, newspapers and television, with immense influence inside the Beltway and, in ramifying synergic ways, throughout the country. Their Russiagate media malpractice, as I have termed it, may have been the worst such episode in modern American history. ..."
"... Almost equally remarkable and lamentable, we learn that even now, after Mueller's finding is known, top executives of the Times and other leading Russiagate media outlets, including The Washington Post and CNN, " have no regrets ." ..."
"... Leading members of the party initiated, inflated, and prolonged it. They did nothing to prevent inquisitors like Representatives Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell from becoming the cable-news face of the party. Or to rein in or disassociate the party from the outlandish excesses of "The Resistance." With very few exceptions, elected and other leading Democrats did nothing to stop -- and therefore further abetted -- the institutional damage being done by Russiagate allegations. ..."
"... Rachel Maddow continues to hype "the underlying reality that Russia did in fact attack us." By any reasonable definition of "attack," no, it did not, and scarcely any allegation could be more recklessly warmongering, a perception the Democratic Party will for this and other Russiagate commissions have to endure, or not. (When Mueller's full report is published, we will see if he too indulged in this dangerous absurdity. A few passages in the summary suggest he might have done so.) ..."
"... Finally, but potentially not least, the new Cold War with Russia has itself become an institution pervading American political, economic, media, and cultural life. Russiagate has made it more dangerous, more fraught with actual war, than the Cold War we survived, as I explain in War with Russia? Recall only that Russiagate allegations further demonized "Putin's Russia," thwarted Trump's necessary attempts to "cooperate with Russia" as somehow "treasonous," criminalized détente thinking and "inappropriate contacts with Russia" -- in short, policies and practices that previously helped to avert nuclear war. Meanwhile, the Russiagate spectacle has caused many ordinary Russians who once admired America to now be " derisive and scornful " toward our political life. ..."
But as I foresaw well before the summary
of Mueller's "Russia investigation" appeared, there is unlikely to be much, if any. Too many personal and organizational interests
are too deeply invested in Russiagate. Not surprisingly, leading perpetrators instead immediately met the summary with a torrent
of denials, goal-post shifts, obfuscations, and calls for more Russiagate "investigations." Joy Reid of MSNBC, which has been
a citadel of Russiagate allegations along with CNN, even suggested that Mueller and Attorney General William Barr were themselves
engaged in " a cover-up
."
Contrary to a number of major media outlets, from Bloomberg News to The Wall Street Journal , nor does Mueller's
exculpatory finding actually mean that "
Russiagate
is dead " and indeed that " it expired
in an instant ." Such conclusions reveal a lack of historical and political understanding. Nearly three years of Russiagate's
toxic allegations have entered the American political-media elite bloodstream, and they almost certainly will reappear again and
again in one form or another.
This is an exceedingly grave danger, because the real costs of Russiagate are not the estimated $25–40 million spent on the Mueller
investigation but the corrosive damage it has already done to the institutions of American democracy -- damage done not by an alleged
"Trump-Putin axis" but by Russsigate's perpetrators themselves. Having examined this collateral damage in my recently published book
War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate , I will only note them here.
§ Clamorous allegations that the Kremlin "attacked our elections" and thereby put Trump in the White House, despite the lack
of any evidence, cast doubt on the legitimacy of American elections everywhere -- national, state, and local. If true, or even
suspected, how can voters have confidence in the electoral foundations of American democracy? Persistent demands to "secure our
elections from hostile powers" -- a politically and financially profitable mania, it seems -- can only further abet and perpetuate
declining confidence in the entire electoral process.
Still more, if some crude Russian social-media outputs could so dupe voters, what does this tell us about what US elites,
which originated these allegations, really think of those voters, of the American people?
§ Defamatory Russsiagate allegations that Trump was a "Kremlin puppet" and thus "illegitimate" were aimed at the president but
hit the presidency itself, degrading the institution, bringing it under suspicion, casting doubt on its legitimacy. And if an "agent
of a hostile foreign power" could occupy the White House once, a "Manchurian candidate," why not again? Will Republicans be able
to resist making such allegations against a future Democratic president? In any event, Hillary Clinton's failed campaign manager,
Robby Mook, has already told us that there will be a "
next time ."
§ Mainstream media are, of course, a foundational institution of American democracy, especially national ones, newspapers
and television, with immense influence inside the Beltway and, in ramifying synergic ways, throughout the country. Their Russiagate
media malpractice, as I have termed it, may have been the worst such episode in modern American history. No mainstream media
did anything to expose, for example, two crucial and fraudulent Russiagate documents -- the so-called Steele Dossier and the January
2017 Intelligence Community Assessment -- but instead relied heavily on them for their own narratives. Little more need be said here
about this institutional self-degradation. Glenn Greenwald and a few others followed and exposed it throughout, and now Matt Taibbi
has given us a meticulously documented
account of that systematic malpractice , concluding that Mueller's failure to confirm the media's Russiagate allegations "is
a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media."
Nor, it must be added, was this entirely inadvertent or accidental. On August 8, 2016, the trend-setting New York Times
published on its front page
an astonishing editorial manifesto by its media critic. Asking whether "normal standards" should apply to candidate Trump, he
explained that they should not: "You have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the
past half-century." Let others decide whether this Times proclamation unleashed the highly selective, unbalanced, questionably
factual "journalism" that has so degraded Russiagate media or instead the publication sought to justify what was already underway.
In either case, this remarkable -- and ramifying -- Times rejection of its own professed standards should not be forgotten.
Almost equally remarkable and lamentable, we learn that even now, after Mueller's finding is known, top executives of the
Times and other leading Russiagate media outlets, including The Washington Post and CNN, "
have no regrets ."
§ For better or worse, America has a two-party political system, which means that the Democratic Party is also a foundational
institution. Little more also need be pointed out regarding its self-degrading role in the Russiagate fraud. Leading members of the
party initiated, inflated, and prolonged it. They did nothing to prevent inquisitors like Representatives Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell
from becoming the cable-news face of the party. Or to rein in or disassociate the party from the outlandish excesses of "The Resistance."
With very few exceptions, elected and other leading Democrats did nothing to stop -- and therefore further abetted -- the institutional
damage being done by Russiagate allegations.
As for Mueller's finding, the party's virtual network, MSNBC, remains undeterred.
Rachel Maddow
continues to hype "the underlying reality that Russia did in fact attack us." By any reasonable definition of "attack," no, it
did not, and scarcely any allegation could be more recklessly warmongering, a perception the Democratic Party will for this and other
Russiagate commissions have to endure, or not. (When Mueller's full report is published, we will see if he too indulged in this dangerous
absurdity. A few passages in the summary suggest he might have done so.)
§ Finally, but potentially not least, the new Cold War with Russia has itself become an institution pervading American political,
economic, media, and cultural life. Russiagate has made it more dangerous, more fraught with actual war, than the Cold War we survived,
as I explain in War with Russia? Recall only that Russiagate allegations further demonized "Putin's Russia," thwarted Trump's
necessary attempts to "cooperate with Russia" as somehow "treasonous," criminalized détente thinking and "inappropriate contacts
with Russia" -- in short, policies and practices that previously helped to avert nuclear war. Meanwhile, the Russiagate spectacle
has caused many ordinary Russians who once admired America to now be "
derisive and scornful
" toward our political life.
What actually happened with RussiaGate? A cabal of government officials colluded with the
Hillary Clinton campaign to interfere in the 2016 election and, failing to achieve their
desired outcome, engineered a two-years-plus formal inquisition to deflect attention from their
own misconduct and attempt to overthrow the election result.
The Cable News characters, quite a few of them lawyers, were litigating the living shit out
of the story on Sunday night in their usual spirit of obdurate rank dishonesty. For instance,
Jeffrey Toobin, who plays Attorney General on CNN, went off on the infamous 2016 Trump Tower
Meeting in which the president's son, Donald, Jr., met with Russian lawyer Natalia V.
Veselnitskaya. Toobin omitted to mention that Ms. Veselnitskaya was, at that very time, on the
payroll of Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton's "oppo" research contractor. In other words, Trump
Junior was set up.
That was characteristic of the collusion that actually occurred between
the Hillary campaign, the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, the UK's MI6 intel agency, and the
Obama White House, striving to prevent the election of a TV reality show star, and to disable
him afterwards -- also of the news media's role in the whole interminable scam of RussiaGate.
Their fury and despair were as vivid the night of March 24, 2019, as on November 8, 2016. And
now they will attempt to spark off a sequel.
Rachel Maddow, for instance, struggling to maintain her dignity after two years playing
Madame DeFarge on MSNBC, tried to console her fans with the prospect of Mr. Trump getting raked
over the coals by the DOJ's Southern District of NY prosecutors for crimes as yet unpredicted
-- really, whatever they might find if they turn over enough rocks in Manhattan. Perhaps she
doesn't know how the justice system actually works in this country: we prosecute crimes not
persons. In places like Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany, you first choose a person
to eliminate and then fit them to a crime. If no crime can be found, one is easily
manufactured. In the USA, a predicate crime is required before you can launch a prosecution.
Perhaps the actual Attorney General, Mr. Barr, will advise the avid staff of the Southern
District of NY how this works.
There remains also, the rather sweeping panorama of misconduct and probable crime among the
government (and former government) players in the agencies mentioned above. Does the full
Mueller Report mention, for instance, that the animating document claiming that Trump colluded
with Russia was manufactured by Mrs. Clinton's employees? And that this document was used time
and again improperly and illegally to prolong the inquisition? How could Mr. Mueller not
acknowledge that? And if not, what sort of investigation was this?
You are forced to ask: did Mr. Mueller play an honorable role in this epic, multilayered
scandal? And is Mr. Mueller himself an honorable character, or something less than that? I
believe we'll find out. The other team is coming to bat now -- and just in time for MLB's
opening day, too. The Mueller report has been a shocking disappointment to the so-called
"resistance," but what about the as-yet-unreleased DOJ Inspector General's report on these very
matters ? Or the parallel investigation of federal prosecutor John Huber, who is charged
specifically with looking into the malfeasance of the RussiaGate investigators? Or whatever
action the Attorney General himself launches in the wake of all this? Or whether Mr. Trump
finally declassifies the mountains of documents behind the simple failure to find him guilty of
any crime? My favorite college professor and mentor, David Hamilton, once put a curious
question to us when we were vexing him for some reason now forgotten: "Why," he asked, "Did
Achilles drag Hector around the city of Troy three times?"
So, If they would trample Trump's constitutional rights by abusing this bogus fisa warrant
system, shouldn't we assume they are 10 times as likely to abuse it to spy on average
americans, who have no chance of protecting themselves from the police state they have built
since 9-11? Revoke the patriot act. It is unconstitutional anyway, though Trump rewarded the
man who helped write it with the Supreme court position. We have a small window to claw back
the rights they stripped from us. If we don't do it now, when these programs are called into
question, these deep state turds will do whatever they can to consolidate their hold on the
US. I'm not too hopeful, myself. Seeing the blatant piracy they are attempting in Venezuela,
even after the failures in Iraq and Syria, doesn't do much to console me as to America's
future. My relatives came here from England and Germany with little more than the clothes on
their backs. It may be time to look for greener pastures if we are going to be a proxy of
Israel, and a deep state, stripped of our inherent rights bit by bit until we aren't allowed
to leave.
First is the multipart crime committed by Hillary Clinton and her cabal of deep state
co-conspirators to rig a primary, which they did against Bernie Sanders, then attempt to
steal an election by using various intelligence connections in the FBI and CIA to dig up dirt
on candidate Trump in the form of a fake Russia dossier, then petition the DOJ with only
parts of it, to get a warrant to spy on him and ultimately discredit him. Then in the event
he won, use that dossier to concoct a fake Trump/Russia collusion scandal in order to
delegitimize and hopefully reverse the Trump Presidential victory. This was treasonous and
seditious to its core and those conspirators should be investigated as thoroughly as Mueller
investigated Trump and all of his acquaintances.
The second was the Mainstream media's part in all of this mess. They so eagerly bought
into the false narrative and went out of their way, like good little bolsheviks, and
disseminated unproven and unsubstantiated "fake news" that was fed to them each morning by
democrat operatives and consultants, 24/7/365 . Every mainstream media reporter (and I use
that term loosely), and every late night talk host on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, NY
Times, Washington Post, and others, as well as every guest pundit opined without proof, and
pounded the table to every lemming who would listen, that Trump had to be guilty and was in
fact guilty because, well, they didn't like him. These reporters and pundits spread rumors,
called him names such as racist and nazi, etc, etc, with no basis in fact, which was an
historically new low, even for state based propaganda. (FOX news, to their credit, did not).
This agenda driven media overstepped the boundaries of good reporting and journalistic
ethical standards and set the news business back 250 years. What American journalists,
reporters and pundits did in the name of the first amendment "free press" was a national and
global disgrace.
Well said. You forget to mention, as did the article, Mueller's seditious criminal past.
Worst of all - Madcow and the rest of the MSM did a serious smear job on the Russian
government, at a time of already heightened propaganda against a country that could reduce
the USA to ashes. Also - there is the collusion of the UK government and the equally
ridiculous Skripal affair.
It is profoundly sad none of the ringleaders and real provocateurs will be prosecuted, and
things will continue to deteriorate until there is a nuclear war. Because the entire system
is rotten to the core and the citizens don't care about truth or justice.
Thanks for your additional comments. While I'm hopeful Hillary and her co-conspirators
will be investigated, indicted, tried and found guilty of sedition and treason in breaking
laws of at least 6 different acts, I don't believe Republicans have the spine or intestinal
fortitude to make their case, even if they have proof beyond any reasonable doubt to the
extent a first year law student could argue and win the case open and shut.
Also, I do not believe, even for one Milli-second, that public verbal sparring of
political leaders or their hyperbole in the midst of tough negotiations, will ever lead
civilized nations of the world to a nuclear war. it is done purely for effect and political
strategy in their home nations.
That said, you are correct that the media's continuously negative anti-Trump, anti-America
tone for two straight years, did not help trade negotiations or international relations, and
in fact, put the US at a distinct disadvantage. It's a small wonder President Trump has
achieved all the successes he has in spite of this. He deserves great credit.
Mueller knew this was all lies and BS within weeks of taking the job and put on this
charade for 2 YEARS and ruined the lives of innocent people. Mueller is not the good guy here
at all.
That was characteristic of the collusion that actually occurred between the Hillary
campaign, the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, the UK's MI6 intel agency, and the Obama White
House...
After the IG report is released in April, we need to start real investigations.
Congressional and Senate hearings are kabuki! President Trump needs to hire outside lawyers
as a special counsel to get to the bottom of this treason! I don't trust anyone in DOJ to do
that!
It's on..Trump just made an extremely strong statement about "this must NEVER happen to
ANY President EVER again" in response to a question from a journo..
This implies they have any concept of decency or shame to begin with.
They've been planning the SpecialCounsel-Russiagate to Congressional-Obstruction pivot
since 2017... as continued albatross around Trump & MAGA's neck.
Trump better get voter fraud under control to win 2020.
This article is over a year old, but it really explains what this with hunt was about -- to deflect real interference in the US
election as well as exonerate Hillary fiasco. The way Russian were selected is a typical "projected" Anti-Semitism -- persecution on
the base on national origin without any solid fact, but with plenty of prejudices due to Russia Soviet past. What a gang of scamsters
the US neoliberal elite became !
Russiagate Revisited
35 The
anti-Russian hysteria in Washington has slipped beyond self-parody. We now have front-row seats in a theatre of the absurd, watching
the media furor explode after Robert Mueller's 'indictments' of 13 Russians and three Russian companies for interfering in the 2016
presidential elections.
Mueller's actions deserve the scare quotes because they are not really indictments at all. The accused parties will never be extradited
or brought to trial. Nor is it clear that their actions rise to the level of crimes. The supposed indictments are merely dramatic
accusations, a giant publicity stunt.
Even if they were real indictments, they would not be convictions. American journalists seem to have forgotten that distinction.
In contemporary American jurisprudence, prosecutors routinely get rubber stamps from grand juries. A grand jury, the adage goes,
will indict a ham sandwich. For a g-man on a white horse like Mueller, universally lionised in the mainstream media, a grand jury
would probably indict a peanut butter sandwich.
One of the most bizarre aspects of Russiagate is the magical transformation of intelligence agency heads into paragons of truth-telling
– a trick performed not by reactionary apologists for domestic spying, as one would expect, but by people who consider themselves
liberals. There is something genuinely absurd about a former director of the FBI – which along with the CIA and NSA has long been
one of the gravest threats to democracy in America – solemnly warning of the threat to democracy posed by Russian meddling in the
election.
And what was the nature of that alleged meddling? The pseudo-indictments are clear: the meddlers had nothing to do with the Russian
government and nothing to do with the Trump campaign – except that they sometimes 'communicated with unwitting individuals' associated
with it. And the Russians' activities had no impact on the outcome of the election. Mueller's assignment was to investigate whether
the Russian government colluded with the Trump campaign to promote his victory over Hillary Clinton. None of the current charges
has anything to do with this. (Nor does Mueller's recent indictment of Alex van der Zwaan, an attorney and associate of Trump's crony
Paul Manafort.) The pseudo-indictments merely add to the billowing clouds of innuendo that have characterised the Russiagate narrative
from the beginning.
According to Mueller's accusations, the meddlers began their operations long before the campaign began and certainly before anyone
thought Trump had a snowball's chance in hell; they posed as Muslims, black activists, white Southerners, among other social types,
all posting slogans and invective on social media. After the election, they staged pro-Trump and anti-Trump rallies. Somehow the
media have made this mishmash fit the Russiagate narrative, assuming it reveals a coherent Kremlin plan to elect Trump.
So what is the point of these sham indictments? It is fair to speculate that there is more going on here than a simple search
for truth. Early on in the 37-page document that was
released to such fanfare, the FBI makes a revealing assertion, claiming that the Russians aimed 'to sow discord in the US political
system' – as if vigorous debate were not an appropriate state of affairs for a democratic polity; as if the normal expression
of democracy is bland conformity to policies fashioned by elites. By explicitly linking the Russians with support for the Sanders
and Trump campaigns, Mueller's pseudo-indictments identify dissent from the Washington consensus with foreign subversion. They reinforce
the reigning orthodoxy and tighten the boundaries of permissible public discourse.
The consequences are potentially catastrophic. By focusing on the manufactured menace of Russiagate, the Democratic Party leadership
can continue to ignore its own failures as well as the actual menace posed by Trump. And by fostering the fantasy of a vast Russian
plot against America, the mainstream media can shut down reasonable foreign policy debate and promote a dangerous, unnecessary confrontation
with a rival power. The final act in Washington's theatre of the absurd has yet to be written, but the denouement looks dark.
In Ber 2018 Kusher security clearance wasdongraded.
Notable quotes:
"... Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico, the current and former officials said. ..."
"... Kushner's interim security clearance was downgraded last week from the top-secret to the secret level, which should restrict the regular access he has had to highly classified information, according to administration officials. Washpost ..."
" Officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law
and senior adviser, by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience,
according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter.
Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico,
the current and former officials said.
It is unclear if any of those countries acted on the discussions, but Kushner's contacts with certain foreign government officials
have raised concerns inside the White House and are a reason he has been unable to obtain a permanent security clearance, the officials
said.
Kushner's interim security clearance was downgraded last week from the top-secret to the secret level, which should restrict the
regular access he has had to highly classified information, according to administration officials. Washpost
------------------
Most people will probably be struck by the fall from grace of Kushner and other WH staff dilettantes. I am not terribly interested
in that. What strikes me is that this is the third major compromise of US SIGINT products in the last year. The first was the felonious
disclosure to the press of US intelligence penetration of Russian diplomatic communications. the second was the disclosure to the
press of penetration of GRU communications. In this one the oral or written discussions among the officials of several foreign countries
are revealed. These conversations were probably encrypted.
Is Jeff Sessions still alive? Why are there no prosecutions for these felonies? pl
All of this reminds me of the first combat scene in 'Full Metal Jacket'. Joker is being
helicoptered into the battle at Hue, and the door gunner is just firing his M-60 nonstop, yelling 'Get some! Come on! Get
some!', as people below are running and getting shot. Joker says, 'Aren't you afraid that you might be killing innocent
women......or children?'. The door gunner says,
If they run, they're VC.
If they stand still, they're WELL TRAINED VC!'.
No matter the result, what is found or is not, to the left, Trump will always be waiting for
his next check written in Cyrillic and denominated in rubles.
This is the most grandiose False flag propaganda operation known to the mankind. McCarthyism while more vicious was just a blip
of the screen in comparison this this tide of disinformation and insinuations. Iraq WDM resulted in more casualties but was much
more short term. Damage for the USA from this false flag operation might even exceed the damage for Iraq WDM fiasco.
British government and intelligence serves were active participants and in this sense "Skripals poisoning" looks
like a perverted form of "witness protection:" program. A false flag operation on the top of a false flag operation
("Russiagate").
What is amazing is how unapt were the major players.
Notable quotes:
"... Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media. ..."
"... A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in his reports. In a written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished to the world at large." ..."
"... That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States, apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times. ..."
"... The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start. ..."
"... "Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there, and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case." ..."
"... Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check. ..."
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it...
Note to readers: in light of news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation is complete, I'm releasing this chapter
of Hate Inc. early, with a few new details added up top. Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.
As has long been rumored
, the former FBI chief's independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no "
presidency-wrecking
" conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman's definition of "collusion" with Russia.
With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of
the Mueller investigation was best expressed
by the New York Times :
A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.
The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn
of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith.
The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with
votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members
singing "
All I Want for Christmas is You " to him featuring the rhymey line: "Mueller please come through, because the only option is
a coup."
The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller's reputation, noting Trump's Attorney General William Barr's reaction was
an "endorsement" of the fineness of Mueller's work:
In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a "witch hunt," Mr. Barr said Justice
Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.
Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?
For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia "contacts," inviting readers
to keep making connections. But in a
separate piece by Peter
Baker , the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:
It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress,
for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole
This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing,
emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting "
We don't need to read the Mueller
report " because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: "Have
journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?"
The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like themselves made a galactic
error by betting heavily on a
new, politicized approach , trying to be true to "history's judgment" on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse,
in a brutal irony everyone should have
seen coming , the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.
Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps
thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in
a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a "witch hunt."
Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller's final report might leave audiences "
disappointed
," as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.
Openly using such language
has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you'd have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not
match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without
pants.
There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn't prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The
Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters ! There's an ongoing grand jury investigation,
and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and
Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.
For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped
every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something "so
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute.
The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That's a hell of a long way from what
this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn't so.
The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who'd helped
him win the election.
The betrayal narrative was not reported at first as metaphor. It was not "Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be
a spy for them." It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told
reporters, Trump "
will die in jail ."
In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump's campaign had "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence;
the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies
were withholding intelligence
from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel
not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have "leverages of pressure" on Trump.
CNN told us Trump officials had been in "constant contact" with "Russians known to U.S. intelligence," and the former director
of the CIA, who'd helped kick-start the investigation that led to Mueller's probe, said the President was guilty of "high crimes
and misdemeanors," committing acts "
nothing short of treasonous ."
Hillary Clinton insisted Russians "could not have known how to weaponize" political ads unless they'd been "guided" by Americans.
Asked if she meant Trump, she said, "
It's pretty hard not to ." Harry Reid similarly said he had "no doubt" that the Trump campaign was "
in on the
deal " to help Russians with the leak.
None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if
he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the "overwhelming and bipartisan" standard, and Nancy
Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't. If he isn't, news outlets once
again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent
past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC's Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a "
reckoning for the media ."
Of course, there won't be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in
pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can't confirm.
#Russiagate debuted as a media phenomenon in mid-summer, 2016. The roots of the actual story, i.e. when the multi-national investigation
began, go back much further, to the previous year at least. Oddly, that origin tale has not been nailed down yet, and blue-state
audiences don't seem terribly interested in it, either.
By June and July of 2016, bits of the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which
had been funded by the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie (which in turn hired the opposition research
firm Fusion GPS), were already in the ether.
The Steele report occupies the same role in #Russiagate the tales spun by Ahmed Chalabi occupied in the WMD screwup. Once again,
a narrative became turbo-charged when Officials With Motives pulled the press corps by its nose to a swamp of unconfirmable private
assertions.
Some early stories, like a July 4, 2016 piece by Franklin Foer in Slate called "
Putin's Puppet ," outlined future Steele themes in "circumstantial" form. But the actual dossier, while it influenced a number
of pre-election Trump-Russia news stories (notably
one by Michael Isiskoff of Yahoo! that would be
used in a FISA warrant application ), didn't make it into print for a while.
Though it was shopped to
at least nine news organizations during the summer and fall of 2016, no one bit, for the good reason that news organizations
couldn't verify its "revelations."
The Steele claims were explosive if true. The ex-spy reported Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice
of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted. He also said Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague
for "secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers."
Most famously, he wrote the Kremlin had kompromat of Trump "deriling" [sic] a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by "employing
a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show."
The piece didn't have pee, Prague, or Page in it, but it did say Russian intelligence had material that could "blackmail" Trump.
It was technically kosher to print because Corn wasn't publishing the allegations themselves, merely that the FBI had taken possession
of them.
A bigger pretext was needed to get the other details out. This took place just after the election, when four intelligence officials
presented copies of the dossier to both President-Elect Trump and outgoing President Obama.
From his own
memos , we know FBI Director James Comey, ostensibly evincing concern for Trump's welfare, told the new President he was just
warning him about what was out there, as possible blackmail material:
I wasn't saying [the Steele report] was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports
were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give
them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold [sic].
Comey's generous warning to Trump about not providing a "news hook," along with a promise to keep it all "close-held," took place
on January 6, 2017. Within four days, basically the entire Washington news media somehow knew all about this top-secret meeting and
had the very hook they needed to go public. Nobody in the mainstream press thought this was weird or warranted comment.
Even Donald Trump was probably smart enough to catch the hint when, of all outlets, it was CNN that first broke the story of "Classified
documents presented last week to Trump"
on January 10 .
At the same time, Buzzfeed
made
the historic decision to publish the entire Steele dossier, bringing years of pee into our lives. This move birthed the Russiagate
phenomenon as a never-ending, minute-to-minute factor in American news coverage.
Comey was right. We couldn't have reported this story without a "hook." Therefore the reports surrounding Steele technically weren't
about the allegations themselves, but rather the journey of those allegations, from one set of official hands to another. Handing
the report to Trump created a perfect pretext.
This trick has been used before, both in Washington and on Wall Street, to publicize unconfirmed private research. A short seller
might hire a consulting firm to prepare a report on a company he or she has bet against. When the report is completed, the investor
then tries to get the SEC or the FBI to take possession. If they do, news leaks the company is "under investigation," the stock dives,
and everyone wins.
This same trick is found in politics. A similar trajectory
drove negative headlines in the scandal surrounding New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who was said to be under investigation
by the FBI for underage sex crimes (although some
were skeptical
). The initial story didn't hold up, but led to other investigations.
Same with the so-called "
Arkansas project ," in which millions of Republican-friendly private research dollars produced enough noise about the Whitewater
scandal to create years of headlines about the Clintons. Swiftboating was another example. Private oppo isn't inherently bad. In
fact it has led to some incredible scoops, including Enron. But reporters usually know to be skeptical of private info, and figure
the motives of its patrons into the story.
The sequence of events in that second week of January, 2017 will now need to be heavily re-examined. We now know,
from his own testimony , that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had some kind of role in helping CNN do
its report, presumably by confirming part of the story, perhaps through an intermediary or two (there is some controversy over whom
exactly was contacted, and when).
Why would real security officials help litigate this grave matter through the media? Why were the world's most powerful investigative
agencies acting like they were trying to move a stock, pushing an private, unverified report that even Buzzfeed could see had factual
issues? It
made no sense at the time , and makes less now.
In January of 2017, Steele's pile of allegations became public, read by millions. "It is not just unconfirmed," Buzzfeed
admitted
. "It includes some clear errors."
Buzzfeed's decision exploded traditional journalistic standards against knowingly publishing material whose veracity you doubt.
Although a few media ethicists wondered
at it , this seemed not to bother the rank-and-file in the business. Buzzfeed chief Ben Smith is still
proud of
his decision today. I think this was because many reporters believed the report was true.
When I read the report, I was in shock. I thought it read like fourth-rate suspense fiction (I should know: I write fourth-rate
suspense fiction). Moreover it seemed edited both for public consumption and to please Steele's DNC patrons.
Steele wrote of Russians having a file of "compromising information" on Hillary Clinton, only this file supposedly lacked "details/evidence
of unorthodox or embarrassing behavior" or "embarrassing conduct."
We were meant to believe the Russians, across decades of dirt-digging, had an empty kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, to say
nothing of human tabloid headline Bill Clinton? This point was made more than once in the reports, as if being emphasized for the
reading public.
There were other curious lines, including the bit about Russians having "moles" in the DNC, plus some linguistic details that
made me wonder at the nationality of the report author.
Still, who knew? It could be true. But even the most cursory review showed the report had issues and would need a lot of confirming.
This made it more amazing that the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, held hearings on March 20,
2017 that blithely read out Steele report details as if they were fact. From Schiff's opening statement:
According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. Intelligence,
Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin (SEH-CHIN), CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft
Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company.
I was stunned watching this. It's generally understood that members of congress, like reporters, make an effort to vet at least
their prepared remarks before making them public.
But here was Schiff, telling the world Trump aide Carter Page had been offered huge fees on a 19% stake in Rosneft – a company
with a $63 billion market capitalization – in a secret meeting
with a Russian oligarch who was also said to be "a KGB agent and close friend of Putin's."
(Schiff meant "FSB agent." The inability of #Russiagaters to remember Russia is not the Soviet Union became increasingly maddening
over time. Donna Brazile still hasn't deleted her tweet about how "
The Communists are now dictating the
terms of the debate ." )
Schiff's speech raised questions. Do we no longer have to worry about getting accusations right if the subject is tied to Russiagate?
What if Page hadn't done any of these things? To date, he hasn't been charged with anything. Shouldn't a member of Congress worry
about this?
A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in
his reports. In a
written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He
also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished
to the world at large."
That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this
was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States,
apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times.
I contacted Schiff's office to ask if the congressman if he knew about Steele's admission that his report needed verifying, and
if that changed his view of it at all. The response (emphasis mine):
The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and which was leaked publicly several months
ago contains information that may be pertinent to our investigation. This is true regardless of whether it was ever intended for
public dissemination. Accordingly, the Committee hopes to speak with Mr. Steele in order to help substantiate or refute each of
the allegations contained in the dossier.
Schiff had not spoken to Steele before the hearing, and read out the allegations knowing they were unsubstantiated.
The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet
no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from
Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the
lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start.
For years, every hint the dossier might be true became a banner headline, while every time doubt was cast on Steele's revelations,
the press was quiet. Washington Post reporter Greg Miller went to Prague and led a team looking for evidence Cohen had been there.
Post reporters, Miller said, "literally spent weeks and months trying to run down" the Cohen story.
"We sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there,"
he said, "and came away empty."
This was heads-I-win, tails-you-lose reporting. One assumes if Miller found Cohen's name in a hotel ledger, it would have been
on page 1 of the Post. The converse didn't get a mention in Miller's own paper. He only told the story during a discussion
aired by C-SPAN about a new book he'd published. Only The Daily Caller and a few conservative blogs picked it up.
It was the same when Bob Woodward said, "I did not find [espionage or collusion] Of course I looked for it, looked for it hard."
The celebrated Watergate muckraker – who once said he'd
succumbed to "groupthink"
in the WMD episode and added, "I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder" – didn't push very hard here, either. News that
he'd tried and failed to find collusion didn't get into his own paper. It only came out when Woodward was promoting his book Fear
in a discussion with conservative host Hugh Hewitt.
When Michael Cohen testified before congress and denied under oath ever being in Prague, it was the same. Few commercial news
outlets bothered to take note of the implications this had for their previous reports. Would a man clinging to a plea deal lie to
congress on national television about this issue?
Perhaps worst of all was the episode involving Yahoo! reporter Michael Isikoff. He had already been part of one strange tale:
the FBI double-dipping when it sought a FISA warrant to conduct secret surveillance of Carter Page, the would-be mastermind who was
supposed to have brokered a deal with oligarch Sechin.
In its FISA application, the FBI included both the unconfirmed Steele report and Isikoff's September 23, 2016 Yahoo! story, "
U.S. Intel Officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin ." The Isikoff story, which claimed Page had met with "high
ranking sanctioned officials" in Russia, had relied upon Steele as an unnamed source.
This was similar to a laundering technique used in the WMD episode called "stove-piping," i.e. officials using the press to "confirm"
information the officials themselves fed the reporter.
But there was virtually no non-conservative press about this problem apart from a Washington Post story pooh-poohing the issue.
(Every news story that casts any doubt on the collusion issue seems to meet with an instantaneous "fact check" in the Post .) The
Post insisted the FISA issue wasn't serious among other things because Steele was not the "foundation" of Isikoff's piece.
Isikoff was perhaps the reporter most familiar with Steele. He and Corn of Mother Jones , who also dealt with the ex-spy, wrote
a bestselling book that relied upon theories from Steele, Russian Roulette , including a rumination on the "pee" episode. Yet Isikoff
in late 2018 suddenly said he believed the Steele report would turn out to be "
mostly
false ."
Once again, this only came out via a podcast, John Ziegler's "Free Speech Broadcasting" show. Here's a transcript of the relevant
section:
Isikoff: When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, you know, we have not seen
the evidence to support them. And in fact there is good grounds to think some of the more sensational allegations will never be
proven, and are likely false.
Ziegler: That's...
Isikoff: I think it's a mixed record at best at this point, things could change, Mueller may yet produce evidence that changes
this calculation. But based on the public record at this point I have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been
borne out.
Ziegler: That's interesting to hear you say that, Michael because as I'm sure you know, your book was kind of used to validate
the pee tape, for lack of a better term.
Isikoff: Yeah. I think we had some evidence in there of an event that may have inspired the pee tape and that was the visit
that Trump made with a number of characters who later showed up in Moscow, specifically Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone to this
raunchy Las Vegas nightclub where one of the regular acts was a skit called "Hot For Teacher" in which dancers posing as college
Co-Ed's urinated – or simulated urinating on their professor. Which struck me as an odd coincidence at best. I think, you know,
it is not implausible that event may have inspired...
Ziegler: An urban legend?
Isikoff: ...allegations that appeared in the Steele dossier.
Isikoff delivered this story with a laughing tone. He seamlessly transitioned to what he then called the "real" point, i.e. "the
irony is Steele may be right, but it wasn't the Kremlin that had sexual kompromat on Donald Trump, it was the National Enquirer.
"
Recapping: the reporter who introduced Steele to the world (his September 23, 2016 story was the first to reference him as a source),
who wrote a book that even he concedes was seen as "validating" the pee tape story, suddenly backtracks and says the whole thing
may have been based on a Las Vegas strip act, but it doesn't matter because Stormy Daniels, etc.
Another story of this type involved a court case in which Webzilla and parent company XBT sued Steele and Buzzfeed over the mention
their firm in one of the memos. It came out in court testimony that Steele had culled information about XBT/Webzilla from a
2009 post on CNN's "iReports"
page .
Asked if he understood these posts came from random users and not CNN journalists who'd been fact-checked, Steele replied, "
I do not ."
This comical detail was similar to news that the second British Mi6 dossier released just before the Iraq invasion had been
plagiarized in part from a thirteen year-old student thesis from California State University, not even by intelligence people,
but by mid-level functionaries in Tony Blair's press office.
There were so many profiles of Steele as an "
astoundingly
diligent " spymaster straight
out of LeCarre : he was routinely
described like a LeCarre-ian grinder like the legendary George Smiley, a man in the shadows whose bookish intensity was belied
by his "average," "neutral," "quiet," demeanor, being "more low-key than Smiley." One would think it might have rated a mention that
our "Smiley" was cutting and pasting text like a community college freshman. But the story barely made news.
This has been a consistent pattern throughout #Russiagate. Step one: salacious headline. Step two, days or weeks later: news emerges
the story is shakier than first believed. Step three (in the best case) involves the story being walked back or retracted by the
same publication.
That's been rare. More often, when explosive #Russiagate headlines go sideways, the original outlets simply ignore the new development,
leaving the "retraction" process to conservative outlets that don't reach the original audiences.
This is a major structural flaw of the
new fully-divided media
landscape in which Republican media covers Democratic corruption and Democratic media covers Republican corruption. If neither
"side" feels the need to disclose its own errors and inconsistencies, mistakes accumulate quickly.
This has been the main difference between Russiagate and the WMD affair. Despite David Remnick's post-invasion protestations that
"nobody got [WMD] completely right," the Iraq war was launched against the objections of the 6 million or more people who did get
it right, and protested on the streets
. There was open skepticism of Bush claims dotting the press landscape from the start, with people like
Jack Shafer tearing apart every Judith Miller story
in print. Most reporters are Democrats and the people hawking the WMD story were mostly Republicans, so there was political space
for protest.
Russiagate happened in an opposite context. If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made
a number of reporters queasy about coming forward. #Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a
complicated proposition.
Early in the scandal, I appeared on To The Point, a California-based public radio show hosted by Warren Olney, with Corn of Mother
Jones. I knew David a little and had been friendly with him. He once hosted a book event for me in Washington. In the program, however,
the subject of getting facts right came up and Corn said this was not a time for reporters to be picking nits:
So Democrats getting overeager, overenthusiastic, stating things that may not be [unintelligible] true ? Well, tell me a political
issue where that doesn't happen. I think that's looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
I wrote him later and suggested that since we're in the press, and not really about anything except avoiding "things that may
not be true," maybe we had different responsibilities than "Democrats"? He wrote back:
Feel free to police the Trump opposition. But on the list of shit that needs to be covered these days, that's just not high
on my personal list.
Other reporters spoke of an internal struggle. When the Mueller indictment of the Internet Research Agency was met with exultation
in the media, New Yorker writer Adrian Chen, who broke the original IRA story, was
hesitant to come forward with some mild qualms about the way the story was being reported:
"Either I could stay silent and allow the conversation to be dominated by those pumping up the Russian threat," he said, "or I
could risk giving fodder to Trump and his allies."
"What I meant to write is, I wasn't skeptical," he said.
Years ago, in the midst of the WMD affair, Times public editor Daniel Okrent noted the paper's standard had moved from "Don't
get it first, get it right" to "Get it first and get it right." From there,
Okrent wrote , "the next devolution was an obvious one."
We're at that next devolution: first and wrong. The Russiagate era has so degraded journalism that even once "reputable" outlets
are now only about as right as politicians, which is to say barely ever, and then only by accident.
Early on, I was so amazed by the sheer quantity of Russia "bombshells" being walked back, I started to keep a list. It's well
above 50 stories now. As has been noted by Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept and others, if the mistakes were random, you'd
expect them in both directions , but Russiagate errors uniformly go the same way.
In some cases the stories are only partly wrong, as in the case of the famed "
17 intelligence agencies said Russia was behind the hacking " story (it was actually four: the Director of National Intelligence
"hand-picking" a team from the FBI, CIA, and NSA).
In other cases the stories were blunt false starts, resulting in ugly sets of matching headlines:
" Trump
Campaign Aides had repeated contacts with Russian Intelligence ," published by the Times on Valentine's Day, 2017, was an important,
narrative-driving "bombshell" that looked dicey from the start. The piece didn't say whether the contact was witting or unwitting,
whether the discussions were about business or politics, or what the contacts supposedly were at all.
Normally a reporter would want to know what the deal is before he or she runs a story accusing people of having dealings with
foreign spies. "Witting" or "Unwitting" ought to be a huge distinction, for instance. It soon after came out that people like former
CIA chief John Brennan don't think this is the case. "Frequently, people who are on a treasonous path do not know they're on a treasonous
path,"
he said, speaking of Trump's circle.
This seemed a dangerous argument, the kind of thing that led to trouble in the McCarthy years. But let's say the contacts were
serious. From a reporting point of view, you'd still need to know exactly what the nature of such contacts were before you run that
story, because the headline implication is grave. Moreover you'd need to know it well enough to report it, i.e. it's not enough to
be told a convincing story off-the-record, you need to be able to share with readers enough so that they can characterize the news
themselves.
Not to the Times, which ran the article without the specifics. Months later, Comey blew up this "contacts" story in public, saying,
" in the
main, it was not true ."
As was the case with the "17 agencies" error, which only got fixed when Clapper testified in congress and was forced to make the
correction under oath, the "repeated contacts" story was only disputed when Comey testified in congress, this time
before the
Senate Intelligence Committee . How many other errors of this type are waiting to be disclosed?
Even the mistakes caught were astounding. On December 1, 2017, ABC reporter Brian Ross claimed Trump "as a candidate" instructed
Michael Flynn to contact Russia. The news caused the Dow to plummet 350 points. The story was retracted almost immediately and
Ross was suspended .
Bloomberg reported Mueller subpoenaed Trump's Deutsche Bank accounts; the subpoenas turned out to be of
other
individuals' records. Fortune said C-SPAN
was hacked after Russia Today programming briefly interrupted coverage of a Maxine Waters floor address. The New York Times
also ran the story, and it's
still up, despite C-SPAN insisting its own "internal routing error" likely caused the feed to appear in place of its own broadcast.
CNN has its own separate sub-list of wrecks. Three of the network's journalists
resigned after a story purporting to tie Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund was retracted. Four more
CNN reporters (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus) were bylined in a story that claimed Comey was expected
to refute Trump's claims he was told he wasn't the target of an investigation. Comey blew that one up, too.
In another CNN scoop gone awry, "
Email pointed Trump campaign to WikiLeaks documents ," the network's reporters were off by ten days in a "bombshell" that supposedly
proved the Trump campaign had foreknowledge of Wikileaks dumps. "It's, uh, perhaps not as significant as what we know now," offered
CNN's Manu Raju in a painful on-air retraction .
The worst stories were the ones never corrected. A particularly bad example is "
After Florida School Shooting,
Russian 'Bot' Army Pounced ," from the New York Times on Feb 18, 2018. The piece claimed Russians were trying to divide Americans
on social media after a mass shooting using Twitter hashtags like #guncontrolnow, #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting.
The Times ran this quote high up:
"This is pretty typical for them, to hop on breaking news like this," said Jonathon Morgan, chief executive of New Knowledge,
a company that tracks online disinformation campaigns. "The bots focus on anything that is divisive for Americans. Almost systematically."
About a year after this story came out, Times reporters Scott Shane and Ann Blinder
reported that the same outfit,
New Knowledge , and in particular that same Jonathon Morgan, had participated in a cockamamie scheme to fake Russian troll activity
in an Alabama Senate race. The idea was to try to convince voters Russia preferred the Republican.
The Times quoted a New Knowledge internal report about the idiotic Alabama scheme:
We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media
by a Russian botnet
The Parkland story was iffy enough when it came out, as Twitter
disputed
it, and another of the main sources for the initial report, former intelligence official Clint Watts, subsequently
said he was "not convinced" on the whole "bot thing."
But when one of your top sources turns out to have faked exactly the kind of activity described in your article, you should at
least take the quote out, or put an update online. No luck: the story remains up on the Times site, without disclaimers.
Russiagate institutionalized one of the worst ethical loopholes in journalism, which used to be limited mainly to local crime
reporting. It's always been a problem that we publish mugshots and names of people merely arrested but not yet found guilty. Those
stories live forever online and even the acquitted end up permanently unable to get jobs, smeared as thieves, wife-beaters, drunk
drivers, etc.
With Russiagate the national press abandoned any pretense that there's a difference between indictment and conviction. The most
disturbing story involved Maria Butina. Here authorities and the press shared responsibility. Thanks to an indictment that initially
said the Russian traded
sex for favors, the Times and other outlets flooded the news cycle with breathless stories about a redheaded slut-temptress come
to undermine democracy, a "real-life Red Sparrow," as ABC put it.
But a judge threw out the sex charge after "five minutes" when it turned out to be based on a
single joke text to a friend who had taken Butina's car for inspection.
It's pretty hard to undo public perception you're a prostitute once it's been in a headline, and, worse, the headlines are still
out there. You can still find stories like "
Maria Butina, Suspected
Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan " online in the New York Times.
Here a reporter might protest: how would I know? Prosecutors said she traded sex for money. Why shouldn't I believe them?
How about because, authorities have been lying their faces off to reporters since before electricity! It doesn't take much investigation
to realize the main institutional sources in the Russiagate mess – the security services, mainly – have extensive records of deceiving
the media.
As noted before, from World War I-era tales of striking union workers being German agents to the "missile gap" that wasn't (the
"gap" was leaked to the press before the Soviets had even one operational ICBM) to the Gulf of Tonkin mess to all the smears of people
like Martin Luther King, it's a wonder newspapers listen to whispers from government sources at all.
In the Reagan years National Security Adviser John Poindexter spread false stories about Libyan terrorist plots to The Wall Street
Journal and other papers. In the Bush years, Dick Cheney et al were selling manure by the truckload about various connections between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, infamously including a story that bomber Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague.
The New York Times
ran a story that Atta was in Prague in late October of 2001, even giving a date of the meeting with Iraqis, April 8, or "just
five months before the terrorist attacks." The Prague story was another example of a tale that seemed shaky because American officials
were putting the sourcing first on foreign intelligence, then on reporters themselves. Cheney cited the Prague report in subsequent
TV appearances, one of many instances of feeding reporters tidbits and then selling reports as independent confirmation.
It wasn't until three years later, in 2004, that Times reporter James Risen definitively killed the Atta-in-Prague canard (why
is it always Prague?) in a story entitled "
No evidence of meeting with Iraqi ." By then, of course, it was too late. The Times also
held a major dissenting piece by Risen about the WMD case, "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports," until days
after war started. This is what happens when you start thumbing the scale.
This failure to demand specifics has been epidemic in Russiagate, even when good reporters have been involved. One of the biggest
"revelations" of this era involved a story that was broken first by a terrible reporter (the Guardian's Luke Harding) and followed
up by a good one (Jane Mayer of the New Yorker ). The key detail involved the elusive origin story of Russiagate.
Mayer's piece, the March 12, 2018 "
Christopher
Steele, the Man Behind The Trump Dossier " in the New Yorker , impacted the public mainly by seeming to bolster the credentials
of the dossier author. But it contained an explosive nugget far down. Mayer reported Robert Hannigan, then-head of the GCHQ (the
British analog to the NSA) intercepted a "stream of illicit communications" between "Trump's team and Moscow" at some point prior
to August 2016. Hannigan flew to the U.S. and briefed CIA director John Brennan about these communications. Brennan later testified
this inspired the original FBI investigation.
When I read that, a million questions came to mind, but first: what did "illicit" mean?
If something "illicit" had been captured by GCHQ, and this led to the FBI investigation (one of several conflicting public explanations
for the start of the FBI probe, incidentally), this would go a long way toward clearing up the nature of the collusion charge. If
they had something, why couldn't they tell us what it was? Why didn't we deserve to know?
I asked the Guardian: "Was any attempt made to find out what those communications were? How was the existence of these communications
confirmed? Did anyone from the Guardian see or hear these intercepts, or transcripts?"
Their one-sentence reply:
The Guardian has strict and rigorous procedures when dealing with source material.
That's the kind of answer you'd expect from a transnational bank, or the army, not a newspaper.
I asked Mayer the same questions. She was more forthright, noting that, of course, the story had originally been broken
by Harding , whose
own report said "the precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public."
She added that "afterwards I independently confirmed aspects of [Harding's piece] with several well-informed sources," and "spent
months on the Steele story [and] traveled to the UK twice for it." But, she wrote, "the Russiagate story, like all reporting on sensitive
national security issues, is difficult."
I can only infer she couldn't find out what "illicit" meant despite proper effort. The detail was published anyway. It may not
have seemed like a big deal, but I think it was.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disbelieve the idea that there were "illicit" contacts between Trump and Russians in early 2015
or before. But if there were such contacts, I can't think of any legitimate reason why their nature should be withheld from the public.
If authorities can share reasons for concern with foreign countries like Israel, why should American voters not be so entitled?
Moreover the idea that we need to keep things secret to protect sources and methods and "tradecraft" (half the press corps became
expert in goofy spy language over the last few years, using terms like "SIGINT" like they've known them their whole lives), why are
we
leaking news of our ability to hear Russian officials cheerin g Trump's win?
Failure to ask follow-up questions happened constantly with this story. One of the first reports that went sideways involved a
similar dynamic: the contention that some leaked DNC emails were forgeries.
MSNBC's "Intelligence commentator" Malcolm Nance, perhaps the most enthusiastic source of questionable #Russiagate news this side
of Twitter conspiracist Louise Mensch,
tweeted on October 11, 2016: " #PodestaEmails
are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries &
#blackpropaganda not even professionally done."
As noted in The Intercept and elsewhere, this was re-reported by the likes of
David Frum (a key member of the club that has now contributed to both the WMD and Russiagate panics) and MSNBC host
Joy Reid . The reports didn't stop until roughly October of 2016, among other things because the Clinton campaign kept suggesting
to reporters the emails were fake. This could have been stopped sooner if examples of a forgery had been demanded from the Clinton
campaign earlier.
Another painful practice that became common was failing to confront your own sources when news dispositive to what they've told
you pops up. The omnipresent Clapper told Chuck Todd on March 5, 2017, without equivocation, that there had been no FISA application
involving Trump or his campaign. " I can deny it ," he
said.
It soon after came out this wasn't true. The FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page. This was not a small misstatement by Clapper,
because his appearance came a day after Trump claimed in a tweet he'd had his "
wires tapped ." Trump was widely ridiculed for this claim, perhaps appropriately so, but in addition to the Page news, it later
came out there had been a FISA warrant of Paul Manafort as well, during which time Trump may have been the subject of "
incidental " surveillance.
Whether or not this was meaningful, or whether these warrants were justified, are separate questions. The important thing is,
Clapper either lied to Todd, or else he somehow didn't know the FBI had obtained these warrants. The latter seems absurd and unlikely.
Either way, Todd ought to been peeved and demanded an explanation. Instead, he had
Clapper back on again within months and gave him the usual softball routine, never confronting him about the issue.
Reporters repeatedly got burned and didn't squawk about it. Where are the outraged stories about all the scads of anonymous "people
familiar with the matter" who put reporters in awkward spots in the last years? Why isn't McClatchy demanding the heads of whatever
"four people with knowledge" convinced them to
double down on the Cohen-in-Prague story ?
Why isn't every reporter who used "New Knowledge" as a source about salacious
Russian troll stories
out for their heads (or the heads of the congressional sources who passed this stuff on), after reports they faked Russian trolling?
How is it possible NBC and other outlets continued to use
New Knowledge as a source in stories identifying antiwar Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian-backed candidate?
How do the Guardian's editors not already have Harding's head in a vice for hanging them out to dry on the most
dubious un-retracted story in modern history – the tale that the most watched human on earth, Julian Assange, had somehow been
visited in the Ecuadorian embassy by Paul Manafort without leaving any record? I'd be dragging Harding's "well placed source" into
the office and beating him with a hose until he handed them something that would pass for corroborating evidence.
The lack of blowback over episodes in which reporters were put in public compromised situations speaks to the overly cozy relationships
outlets had with official sources. Too often, it felt like a team effort, where reporters seemed to think it was their duty to take
the weight if sources pushed them to overreach. They had absolutely no sense of institutional self-esteem about this.
Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump. Why bother
having a press corps at all if you're going to go that route?
This posture all been couched as anti-Trump solidarity, but really, did former CIA chief John Brennan – the same Brennan who should
himself have faced charges for
lying to congress about hacking the computers of Senate staff – need the press to
whine on his behalf when Trump yanked his security clearance? Did we need the press to hum Aretha Franklin tunes, as ABC did,
and chide Trump for lacking
R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the CIA? We don't have better things to do than that "work"?
This catalogue of factual errors and slavish stenography will stand out when future analysts look back at why the "MSM" became
a joke during this period, but they were only a symptom of a larger problem. The bigger issue was a radical change in approach.
A lot of #Russiagate coverage became straight-up conspiracy theory, what Baker politely called "connecting the dots ." This was
allowed because the press committed to a collusion narrative from the start, giving everyone cover to indulge in behaviors that would
never be permitted in normal times.
Such was the case with Jonathan
Chait's #Russiagate opus , "PRUMP TUTIN: Will Trump be Meeting With his Counterpart – or his Handler?" The story was also pitched
as "What if Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987," which recalls the joke from The Wire: "
Yo, Herc, what if your mother and father never met ?" What
if isn't a good place to be in this business.
This cover story (!) in New York magazine was released in advance of a planned "face-to-face" summit between Trump and Putin,
and posited Trump had been under Russian control for decades. Chait noted Trump visited the Soviet Union in 1987 and came back "fired
up with political ambition." He offered the possibility that this was a coincidence, but added:
Indeed, it seems slightly insane to contemplate the possibility that a secret relationship between Trump and Russia dates back
this far. But it can't be dismissed completely.
I searched the Chait article up and down for reporting that would justify the suggestion Trump had been a Russian agent dating
back to the late eighties, when, not that it matters, Russia was a different country called the Soviet Union.
Only two facts in the piece could conceivably have been used to support the thesis: Trump met with a visiting Soviet official
in 1986, and visited the Soviet Union in 1987. That's it. That's your cover story.
Worse, Chait's theory was first espoused in Lyndon Larouche's "
Elephants and Donkeys " newsletter
in 1987, under a headline, "Do Russians have a Trump card?" This is barrel-scraping writ large.
It's a mania. Putin is literally in our underpants. Maybe, if we're lucky, New York might someday admit
its report claiming Russians set up an anti-masturbation hotline to trap and blackmail random Americans is suspicious, not just
because it seems absurd on its face, but because its source is the same "New Knowledge" group that admitted to faking Russian influence
operations in Alabama.
This ultimately will be the endgame of the Russia charade. They will almost certainly never find anything like the wild charges
and Manchurian Candidate theories elucidated in the Steele report. But the years of panic over the events of 2016 will lead to radical
changes in everything from press regulation to foreign policy, just as the WMD canard led to torture, warrantless surveillance, rendition,
drone assassination, secret budgets and open-ended, undeclared wars from Somalia to Niger to Syria. The screw-ups will be forgotten,
but accelerated vigilance will remain.
It's hard to know what policy changes are appropriate because the reporting on everything involving the Russian threat in the
last two to three years has been so unreliable.
I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece
of the story seemed "solid," but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still based on an "
assessment " by the intelligence services that
always had issues, including the use of things like RT's "anti-American" coverage of fracking as part of its case. The government
didn't even examine the DNC's server, the kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous.
We won't know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets out of bed with the security services and looks at
this whole series of events all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors. That means being open to asking
what went wrong with this story, in addition to focusing so much energy on Trump and Russia.
The WMD mess had massive real-world negative impact, leading to over a hundred thousand deaths and trillions in lost taxpayer
dollars. Unless Russiagate leads to a nuclear conflict, we're unlikely to ever see that level of consequence.
Still, Russiagate has led to unprecedented cooperation between the government and Internet platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and
Google, all of which are censoring pages on the left, right, and in between in the name of preventing the "sowing of discord." The
story also had a profound impact on the situation in places like Syria, where Russian and American troops have sat across the Euphrates
River from one another, two amped-up nuclear powers at a crossroads.
As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations
this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it's led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We've become sides-choosers,
obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.
We had the sense to eventually look inward a little in the WMD affair, which is the only reason we escaped that episode with any
audience left. Is the press even capable of that kind of self-awareness now? WMD damaged our reputation. If we don't turn things
around, this story will destroy it
Taibbi is spot on, and in depth with this writing. The main stream media sold Americans on the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Almost 2 decades later, we have spent 6 trillion dollars, 8 millions lives have been lost, and millions of refugees have flooded
out of those countries, causing instability in Europe and beyond. For the past 2 years, 24/7, we have not been able to escape
the claims of Russiagate. He does not mention how the very same media gave Trump 24/7 coverage long before he was elected, and
in fact this free publicity, is probably why Trump is in the White House today. Without the constant press coverage of his campaign,
coverage that was not provided to other candidates, he would most likely not have found his way to the White House. Taibbi does
not go on to tell us what the motivation of the press is, or what he thinks can be done. News shows in the US have become little
more than entertainment. Many of us no longer rely on main stream press for any real news. The mass media has become irrelevant
at it's best, and dangerous, at it's worst. The driving force behind the so called news today, is the advertising dollars, and
the politics of the owners of the networks. How can we have a "free press" when just a few individuals own all the major news
outlets? We are not going to get the real news on tv of from the big newspapers, as long as the power is in the hands of a few
rich and powerful individuals, who decide what is news.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" - Alexander Pope
The rash or inexperienced will attempt things that wiser people are more cautious of.
Finally the libs will agree that guns do have their place in society. These crazy zealots may just blow their own brains out
or just find the nearest cliff. Ace Hardware is loading up on rope.
hmmm....just imagine if - sleyers money contribution fo impeach trump was turned into a movie where a "sponsor" drew up a hit
list of batshit crazy MSM "personalities" to include late night "comfuckedupedians"
Even if you were stupid enough to believe Trump was getting dirt on Hillary from the Russians, what is wrong with that? Is
there a law against that? Why is it OK for Obama and the FBI to get away with wiretapping Trump during the election? Why is it
OK for NSA to wiretap All Americans and store all their conversations and internet traffic on hard drives?
Steele, Orbis, Pablo Miller, Salisbury, Porton Down, golden-shower dossier supposedly written by a native Russian speaker with
an intelligence background....it all makes me wonder what happened to Skripal.
"Skripalgate" is suppressed by UK law. All russians are evil in the UK. The fact that (as with tony Bliar and yellowcake Iraq)
any sitting government can prosecute another country without a trial, witnesses or evidence - as in the Skripals and within the
FUKUS cabal that bombed syria because of - "chlorine barrel bomb attacks on civilians" who later showed up unscathed in Den Haag.
UK governments cannot be held to account for their actions domestically or overseas.
Both parties have been playing up the threat from Russia for decades. The Military Industrial Complex was built on creating
fear about the possibility of war with Russian. The military industrial complex owns Congress, so of course Congress is going
to play up this threat. " The reason why media is working so hard to create the impression that Russia is actively conspiring
against is because conflict with the former Soviet Union is good for business." We can expect this to continue in one form or
another. If Americans were not afraid of Russia, we would not support a defense budget that is equal to all other countries in
the world combined.
Right. The depth of your analysis is impressive. You seem to have an unlimited knowledge of world and national affairs too.
Other than some stalking tendencies, why do you post on ZH? You don't really seem to have any interest in the content, or the
discussion.
I dont want to type up everything that led me to believe this. But the racism, his empathy towards certain muslims groups and
how he treated the war, the prisoner release, the sailors broadcasted on tv about drifting into territorial waters, I mean it
was so obvious how he felt about America.
Pile on his efforts to interfere in the election and eavesdrop, unmasking with Hillary getting and receiving emails from her
home brew server not to mention her foundation pulling in 145 million from Russia.
The CIA is sickening to what has developed over the last 20 years
Blind: If so, it just means it will not be reported on in the MainStream Media(MSM) and soon forgotten.
The same people who own the private central bank and currency, also own the MSM, and they control the narrative on ALL TOPICS.
And control of narrative mean control of what people think.
Control of money and mind means TOTAL control of a country.
Nothing will change until control of minds is returned to the people, then issuance of currency can be returned to the government.
Alex Jones' of Infowars got it right when he said "There's a war on for your mind!" ... even though he became a turncoat himself,
soon after.
Hillary lost a freaking election. After almost 3 freaking years of coup d'état the left deserves mocking humiliation. Mock
them ruthlessly. Never, ever let them forget the horrible thing that they did.
Never stop making fun of them and reminding them how stupid and crazy they acted during this humiliating period of US history.
Never let them forget what they did to the nation or what they cost us all. Never let Democrats forget how much time and energy
they wasted, how very, very wrong they were.
Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this moronic load of Russia! Russia!
Russia! has utterly discredited themselves for life. They executed and failed to accomplish a coup d'état. These are the very
last people anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world or an ice cream truck.
Refuse them, laugh at them, ignore them. They earned it and deserve nothing but the greatest disdain.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't.
Of course there isn't. But this doesn't mean that a prosecutor like Mueller can prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. In
fact it is quite likely that he cannot. The only charge that should be fairly easy to establish is obstruction of justice.
Without knowing what is in the report, Taibbi really jumps the gun here. Especially given the comparison to WMDs.
I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion because I followed, and chose to believe, a credible diplomat like Hans
Blix over the dog and pony show that Colin Powell put on. But WMDs are very tangible you either find the hardware or you do not.
Yet, what Putin and Trump discuss without a single other American in the room nobody knows but the Kremlin and Trump.
"It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came
together and supported those ideals who have made the difference.
They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We
can do this again ."
Hardly the call for violent civil war at which it has been portrayed.
The most coiffed, manicured, made up sacks of **** ever to glorify the airwaves tell US what THEY think and get paid handsome
salaries for their effort to overthrow the American system. Freedom of Speech? That'll be gone in a heartbeat if THEY get power.
We have an obligation to not just protect it but a greater one to preserve it.
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to interfere with the Mueller investigation.
Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite
and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I
constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications
and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at
times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken,
did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or criticism."
Here's the goddam thing IMO. There is this thing called freedom of the press, it's constitutionally protected, no different
than the right to bear arms.
But just because I have the right to carry an M+A 9mm around, that doesn't mean I can point it at the guy who cut me off in
traffic. In that case, I go to jail.
For almost three years now, I've been hearing "bombshell" after unsourced "bombshell" from CNN/MSNBC/WaPo/NPR/NYT et. al. Here's
how it usually goes:
"NPR has been unable to independently confirm, but other major news organizations are reporting that . . ."
"CNN is working to confirm a bombshell report from the Washington Post . . ."
"The New York Times, echoing other major news outlets, is reporting that . . ."
And now let's turn to our panel of experts to "unpack" this latest revelation . . .
These people have criminally abused their rights, and those rights need to be taken away.
Otschelnik,
If Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, Judy Woodruff, Chuck Todd, Anderson Cooper, Brian Stelter, Chris Hayes, Mika Brzezinski,
Don Lemon, Alysin Camerota, Lawrence O'Donnell had the slightest inkling of professional integrity, and human conscience -
they'd commit seppuku on national live TeeVee to restore their honor.
A rope leash, 3 hours ago
In his effort to cleanse himself of the slimy residue of his profession, Tiabbi has written a fine piece here, a nice
little documentation of press collusion with government spooks and political operatives.
If a little honest reporting will offer some redemption to damned journalists, his name was Seth Rich.
hooligan2009, 3 hours ago
don't forget that Obama was PERSONALLY and DIRECTLY involved in all aspects of Russiagate.
read between these lines
On Oct. 14, 2016, Page again wrote to McCabe, this time concerning a meeting with the White House.
"Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there,
and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with
her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case."
newworldorder, 3 hours ago
The simple truth here is that most Americans no longer have any critical thinking skills, - all media realized this a long
time ago, and catered to their audience.
The Benjamin Franklin famous quote in answer to the question of "what kind of government have you given us?" rings very hollow
after 240+ years. The "Republic" exists in name only, because its people have not protected it, after the passing of the WW2
generation.
Unrestricted, open borders invasion disguised as alleged migration, and the legalization of an eventual 100+ million new
"migrant" voters will be the final nail on the coffin of the US Republic by 2030.
Mob rule will finally destroy the greatest Republic ever conceived by the mind of men.
Mike Rotsch, 3 hours ago (Edited)
If "open borders" is your measuring stick on Americans' critical-thinking skills, then where does that place Europeans?
They actually have them officially.
Paracelsus, 3 hours ago
Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and
the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check.
Ghaddafi actually warned the west that after him would come a deluge of illegals (okay refugees: young males, black, often
Islamic, with little respect for women or experience with western society).
While I have reservations about Trump and his policies, the MSM owe him a huge mea culpa.
"... The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to overturn the results of elections. ..."
"... At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this. ..."
"... I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee – Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this conspiracy. ..."
"... It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' – notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further. ..."
"... They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. ..."
"... Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal. ..."
"... The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue; ..."
"... Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law. ..."
"... It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection" operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.) ..."
There were no major disagreements between Mueller and his managers at the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ).
The Russians who tried to interfere in the 2016 election were exposed and charged -- but no
American was charged with any effort to conspire with Moscow and hijack the election.
the "Steele dossier" that was the main FISA evidence was paid for with funds
from Hillary Clinton
's campaign and the Democratic Party;
Christopher Steele, the dossier's author, had told a senior DOJ official he was desperate to
defeat Trump;
most of the dossier was not verified before it was used as evidence of alleged Trump-Russia
collusion; and
agents collected statements from key defendants such as Papadopoulos and Carter Page during
interactions with an FBI informant that strongly suggested their innocence.
Such omissions are so glaring as to constitute defrauding a federal court. And each and
every participant to those omissions needs to be brought to justice.
An upcoming DOJ inspector general's report should trigger the beginning of that
accountability in a court of law, and President Trump can assist the effort by declassifying
all evidence of wrongdoing by FBI, CIA and DOJ officials. " The Hill
------------
Pilgrims, the seditious conspiracy to depose the elected president of the United States for
conspiracy to commit treason with the Government of the Russian Federation has been
defeated.
The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously
used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make
an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to
overturn the results of elections.
At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary
Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever,
clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the
even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British
intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose
staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this.
The leftist press is already discounting the results of Mueller's investigation while
gloating over how long the Democratic held House of Representatives can continue to search
through Trump's life trying to find criminality.
AG Barr should stand Mueller up next to him at a press conference to make clear the results
of his report and to answer questions about it. After that the prosecutions should begin.
pl
I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee –
Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled
against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this
conspiracy.
It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a
strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' –
notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which
case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further.
The argument that declassification of relevant documentation would harm the intelligence
relationship between the U.S. and U.K. has clearly been made with great emphasis from this
side.
In fact, it is pure bollocks. A serious investigation on your side, which could lead to
the kind of clean-out which should have happened when the scale of the corruption of
intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq became clear, might pave the way for us
to reconstruct reasonably functional intelligence services.
Doing this on both sides of the Atlantic might pave the way for a reconstruction of an
intelligence relationship which was actually beneficial to both countries, as in recent years
it patently has not been.
Whether there is a realistic prospect of people on your side opening the cans of worms on
ours, as well as your own, of course remains a moot point.
I'm glad the Steele affair has been examined at the American end -
"They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with
Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US
political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and
spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York.
"
What about the UK end? We're fussing over some little local difficulties in the UK at the
moment and at our end the questions still remain - Who in the UK authorised it and how high did it go?
The problem with criminal prosecution is one must cite a Brit or US law which was violated.
The only ones in US law that I am aware of stipulate that the plotting must be by means of
violence, "by force". All this appears to me to be only the propagation of rumors.
I think it might be more the investigation of the propagation of rumours. Think back to that election campaign, and to the period before the inauguration.
Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an
odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers
nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it
turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal.
With respect it is not propagating rumours to ask how that happened. As for my own
interest in the affair, it is not propagating rumours to ask how a senior UK ex-Intelligence
Officer comes to be mixed up in it all. I suppose I started to look on it as rather more than a prank or a few cogs slipping when
that senior UK ex-Intelligence Officer got whisked away to a safe house. We're a penny
pinching lot over here and we don't run to that sort of thing for nothing.
An investigation could certainly be predicated on the reasonable suspicion that Steele, et
al, conspired to defraud the United States, in this case a purposeful and knowing smear of a
candidate for office; also, another potential violation could be lying to the FBI, T 18 USC
1001.
The problem, as I see it, is sorting out the malignant from the merely incompetent. As I've
argued many times, the dossier should have been dismissed from the outset as a pile of
garbage, empty of actionable content, because the ultimate sources could not be vetted: the
information could not be said to be either credible or reliable. The information was acted on
by screening it behind the reliabilty and credibility, so called, of Steele. So it would be
necessary to show that Steele knew that the information, point by point, was false. This
could be difficult. Steele's first line of defense would be that he threw everything that he
heard from anyone at all into the mix in the expectation that the "professionals" would
figure it out.
Yes, they were all partisan, Steele, his sources, his bosses, the so called
professionals, and their partisanship would be easy to prove; and yes, almost assuredly their
partisanship contributed, perhaps even explained, their defective judgement as to how to
handle the scurrilous information, especially on the part of the so called professionals, but
proving they actually knew the materials to be false would be difficult.
They couldn't know
that it was false because they had no ability to run down the sources. The professionals
would defend themselves by saying they had no ability to vet the sources but the information
represented such a serious security threat that they had no alternative but to try to vet the
information by launching the investigation against the targets. This puts the cart before the
horse, represents an astonishing lack of judgement, especially considering the "exalted"
positions in the Intel Community the people exercising the bad judgement occupied, but there
it is - "we thought we were doing the right thing."
Perhaps this defense could be overcome by
demonstrating that people at such high and important heights of government could not possible
be so stupid... maybe.
And of course we have the orchestrated leaks to various media, the orchestrated unmaskings,
all of which kept the media frenzy fired up. All in all, it was the greatest political dirty
trick ever attempted in American Politics, and did devastating damage to both domestic
tranquility and national security. Trump survived, but the damage done is incalculable.
So It pains me greatly to think that the reckoning will likely have to be political rather
than criminal because the malice that can be demonstrated is so admixed and even overshadowed
by incompetence and judgement flaws; and even a political reckoning given the state of the
country is so uncertain.
I hope that I am wrong and that some kind of prosecution can be fashioned because of the
sheer enormity of violence that was done to our electoral system, surpassing by far the
chickenshit case Mueller brought against the Russian troll farm; but I fear that I am right.
It hurts to think that so much damage can be caused by scheming little political weasels and
that they all may well walk away scot free; and even be lionized by their political confreres
as having tried to do the right thing. This is the state of American politics today!!!
I see that some of the midgets on horseback are saying that they will bring Mueller before
congress to explain himself. Their knight in shining armor has failed to return with the holy
grail. A couple even suggested that perhaps Mueller has been influenced by the Russians or
somehow intimated by Trump.
The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue;
and that
+ all the crazy Marxism (social and economic), bad immigration policy and Green New Deal is
going to doom the Democrats in 2020. They look like they are jumping off a final sake fueled
banzai charge. Maybe they think the best defense is a good offense re; the prosecutions that
should happen. What is the chance that Mueller will pass *all* he has learned to help get the
criminal cases under way?
On 13 July 2018, when announcing the indictment of 12 Russian military officers by the
Mueller group for "conspiring to interfere" in the 2016 presidential election, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that no "interference" actually happened. In this
video of his announcement, starting at 5 minutes, 52 seconds into it and ending at the 6
minute, 5 second mark, he says--
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result."
Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results
of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly
pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law.
However, I am concerned that the new attorney general, William Barr, will not do so based
on his past associations and work. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am not optimistic.
It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly
unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a
weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection"
operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such
obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.)
I'm wrestling with the idea that 'twas ever thus and now with the internet its workings
are revealed to a "lay" audience with no connection to the dark arts of the spy business. But
I am curious, with the good Colonel's indulgence, if the new tools of the trade have made
things which should be secret not possible to be kept secret?
Amen to the prosecutions. If there is seen to be no accountability for this fraud then we are
seriously damaging what's left of democracy. Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly
support and assist a political candidate who is not "Swamp approved" if they face the threat
of thereby triggering their own, and their family's destruction by the judicial system?
I suggest that even a pardon is not enough for those entrapped in this mess. There needs
to be restitution.
To put that another way, in my opinion, "birther" allegations could be passed off as
political tactics. Nobody got hurt. It is just good luck that Russiagate hasn't resulted in
suicide or worse - so far.
I certainly agree that consequences must be brought to bear: lying politicians without a
shred of evidence, nor did they offer any for their lies; press for their utter and complete
malfeasance and corruption without a shred of evidence, the doj/fbi corrupted and coup
plotting officials,and finally the shame to all who shrieked about "evil" putin, russia the
aggressor, etc. It has set our discourse back decades, forced any critics of this insanity
into the shadows, and completely killed any attempt at normal diplomacy between nations.
I noted one astute writer as equating this russiagate insanity to the lies surrounding wmd
and the destruction of iraq. Close. The damage from this criminality is incalculable!
Will the shrillest of all in the press lose their jobs? Nah, not a chance. Prob get raise
or promotion.Will the brennans, clintons, clappers, et al do the perp walk. Nah, not a
chance. High paid lawyers will tie the courts up for years if not decades.
And america has the institutional memory of a gnat. And of course, the question is as to
high up did this criminality go? I personally do not believe it is a question-it is obvious
to me. The major question for me is how high up the prosecution, if any, will go.
Problem is...who's going to do the prosecuting?
The DOJ - protector of the swamp - has become thoroughly corrupted as an arm of the
Democrat-media party.
Should (can) Trump appoint a special prosecutor as far as possible from the DOJ?
The president might use this and any Republican-led prosecutions as leverage to work out
deals that will allow him to achieve his agenda. I think he'll need to given how the
Democrats intend to use their house majority to launch investigations and hearings to find
something, anything to howl about and impede his agenda.
Still need to see the full report. I hope it is releasable. Otherwise the conspiracy theories
or leaks will never let up. The article cited is a partisan opinion piece, not a news report.
It accepts the fallback stance that yes, crimes were committed but collusion by Trump was not
among them. This actually seems possible if only in light of the chaotic condition of the
campaign.
That said, I would not be surprised to find collusion discounted. Not that the Russians
didn't interfere. That would be entirely in character. But I don't know any reason for
supposing that they would have a better understanding of American political dynamics than the
Americans who make good livings being the best in that arena. The Russians seem to have been
doing the same things as numerous other players. They shouldn't have been in that game, but
there is no strong reason for according them Superman status. Their strongest feature seems
to have been sheer quantity. Outrage over their actions often seems to flow from a poor grasp
of the real nature of normal political process.
"The Russians seem to have been doing the same things..."
Multiple members of the FBI and DOJ seem to have been interfering in the 2016 Presidential
election. How many other federal and state elections did they interfere with?
Can you cite a single piece of hard evidence, not simply allegation, that proves the Russians
interfered in the 2016 election? If so, please cite it, since I know of none. Thank you.
"... Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. ..."
"... As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch ..."
"... I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way. ..."
"... Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller to prove. ..."
"... It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the "national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is time to build cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony. Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it. The truth will work better. ..."
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump
president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who
bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful
wall" and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact
that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth
bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people
did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment
stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump
in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to
conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every
component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence
agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to
remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of
amounts to an attempted soft coup.
It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was
nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. The Clintons once
again, both Bill and Hillary, have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug in the White
House to the status of some kind of martyr. What a country America it is. One thing should be
clear however. Any politician or media pundit that towed the pro-Clintonista line should be
barred from public office or the media forever.
As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary,
they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry.
Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch. There is one difference between Typhoid
Mary, and Bill and Hillary: Typhoid Mary didn't realize what she was doing, the Clintons did!
sorry to double post, but it just occurred to me that they pulled a classic DC move: if you
have something humiliating or horrible to admit, do it on a friday night.
i have to wonder if the entire western media is cynically praying for a (coincidentally
distracting) school shooting or terrorist attack within the next two days.
I have close friends that have been on the MSNBC/Maddow Kool-Ade for years. Constantly
declaring Mueller was on the verge of closing in on Trump and associates for treason with the
Russians. On Friday night after dinner at our home, the TV was tuned to MSNBC so they could
watch their spiritual leader Rachel Maddow....what a pitiful sight (both Maddow and friends).
No one was going to jail or be impeached for conspiring with Putin.....how on how could that
be true. Putin personally stole the election from Clinton and THEY are just going to let him
walk was the declaration a few feet from my chair. Normally, I would recommend grieve
counseling, but they are still my friends ... now they can go back to blaming Bernie for
Clinton's loss. Maybe I will recommend grieve counseling!
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Mar 23, 2019 2:27:18 PM |
link
@dltravers: Apart from the "goyim" you may be right.. But if you want to claim with that
Trumps opponents where under the pressure of the Zionists, you got it all wrong man.. ;) No
presidents been more under the Zionist thumb than DJT.
That ofc doesnt make Hillarys Saudi and Muslim brotherhood connections better.. ;)
Anyway, cheers to the end of this BS! And lets hope that Trump has now payed off his debts
with Adelson now that he secured Bibis reelection. But dont hold your breath.. ;)
"very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this
moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life".
I wish so, but that's not how the exceptional nation of US of A works, as demonstrated by
the Iraq WMD fiasco case. In fact, very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit
(about Saddam's WMD" BS) is alive and well, spreading more BS. What is even more depressing
is that the huge chunk of this exceptional nation cannot have enough of the BS and is
chanting "give me more, give me more...".
The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion.
However some good things have come out of the investigation. It cost taxpayers 2 million
but recouped over 25 million from those convicted of fraud and tax evasion.
And its not over, Mueller has sent 5 to 7 referrals or evidence/witnesses to SDNY, EDNY, DC,
EDVA, plus the National Security and Criminal Divisions. These from information turned up
crimes unrelated to his Russia probe and allegedly concerning Trump or his family business, a
cadre of his advisers and associates. They are being conducted by officials from Los Angeles
to Brooklyn.
The bad news is it exposed how wide spread and corrupt the US has become...in private and
political circles.
The other bad news is most of the Trump lovers and Trump haters are too stupid to drop
their partisan and personal blinders and recognize that ....ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID.
b you have repeatedly made the case that this whole thing was kicked off by the Steele
dossier. That is factually incorrect. The first investigation was already running before the
dossier ever materialized. That investigation spawned the special prosecutors investigation
when Trump fired Comey and then went on TV and said it was because of the Russia
investigation. The Russia investigation was originally kicked off by Papadopoulos drinking
with the the Australian ambassador and bragging about what the campaign was doing with
Russia. Remember the original evidence was presented to the leadership of both the House and
the Senate when they were both controlled by the Republican party and every one that was
briefed came out on camera and said the Justice dept was doing the right thing in pursuing
this.
I think the Democrats should lose Hillary down a deep hole and not let her near any of the
coming campaign events. But this came about because of the actions of the people around
Trump. Not because Hillary controls the US government from some secret bunker some where.
One could argue Russiagate was on the contrary quite a success. The Elites behind the scheme
never believed it would end up with Trump's impeachment. What they did accomplish though is a
deflection via "Fake News" from the Dem's election failures & shenanigans and refocus the
attention towards the DNC's emerging pedophilia scandals (Weiner, the Podesta's, Alefantis,
etc) & suspicious deaths (Seth Rich, etc) towards a dead-end with the added corollary of
preventing US/Ru rapprochement for more then half an administration..
Blooming Barricade , Mar 23, 2019 3:10:02 PM |
link
The deeply tragic thing about this for the media, the neocons, and the liberals is that they
brought it upon themselves by moving the goalposts continuously. If, after Hillary lost, they
had stuck to the "Russia hacked WikiLeaks" lie, then they probably have sufficient proof from
their perspective and the perspective of most of the public that Russia helped Trump win. In
this case it would be remembered by the Democrats like the stolen election of 2000 (albeit
the fact that it was a lie this time). They had multiple opportunities to jump off this
train. Even the ridiculous DNI report could have been their final play: "Russia helped
Trump." Instead of going with 2000 they went with 2001, aka 9-11, with the same neocon
fearmongers playing the pipe organ of lies. As soon as they accepted the Steele Dossier,
moving the focus to "collusion" they discredited themselves forever. Many of the lead
proponents were discredited Iraq war hawks. Except this time it was actually worse because
the whole media bought into it. This leaves an interesting conundrum: there were at least
some pro-Afghanistan anti-Iraq warmongers who rejected the Bush premise in the media, so they
took over the airwaves for about two years before the real swamp creatures returned. This
time, it will be harder to issue a mea culpa. They made this appear like 9-11, well, this
time the truthers have won, and they are doomed.
Societies collapse when their systems (institutions) become compromised. When they are no
longer capable of meeting the needs of the population, or of adapting to a changing world.
Societal systems become compromised when their decision making structures, which are
designed to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interest of the society as a whole,
are captured by people who have no legitimacy to make the decisions, and who make decisions
for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of society as a whole.
Russia-gate is a flagrant example of how the law enforcement and intelligence institutions
have been captured. Their top officials, no longer loyal to their country or their
institution, but rather to an international elite (including the likes of Soros, the
Clintons, and far beyond) have used these institutions in an attempt to delegitimize a
constitutionally elected president and to over turn an election. This is no less than treason
of the highest order.
Indeed, the actions much of the Washington establishment, as well as a number
international actors, since Trump was elected seems suspiciously like one of the 'Color
Revolutions' that are visited upon any country who's citizens did not 'vote right' the first
time. Over-throw the vote, one way or another, until the result that is wanted is achieved.
None of these 'Color Revolutions' has resulted in anything good for the country involved.
Rather they have resulted in the destruction of each country's institutions, and eventually
societal collapse.
In the U.S. the capturing of systems' decision making structures is not limited to
Russia-Gate and the overturning of the electoral system. Their are other prime examples:
- The capture of the Air Transport Safety System by Boeing that has resulted in the recent
737 Max crashes, and likely the destruction of the reputation of the U.S. aviation industry,
in an industry where reputation is everything.
- The capture of the Financial Regulatory System, by Wall Street, who in 1998 rewrote the
rules in their own favor, against the best interests of the population as a whole. The result
was the 2008 financial crisis and the inability of the U.S. economy to effectively recover
from that crisis.
- This capture is also seen in international diplomatic systems, where the U.S. is
systematically by-passing or subverting international law and international institutions,
(the U.N. I.C.J., I.N.F. treaty) etc., and in doing so is destroying these institutions and
the ability to maintain peace.
The result of system (institution) capture is difficult to see at first. But, in time, the
damage adds up, the ability of the systems to meet the needs of the population disappears,
and societal decline sets in.
It looks today like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of
many indicators.
Your comment on the BBC is on the mild side. I listen to it when I drive in in the morning
and also get annoyed sometimes. When it is reporting on the Westminster bubble it is
factually accurate as far as I can judge. Apart from that, and particularly in the case of
the BBC news, we're in information control territory.
But accept that and the BBC turns into quite a valuable resource. It's well staffed, has
good contacts, and picks up what the politicians want us to think with great accuracy.
In that respect it's better than the newspapers and better also than the American media.
Those news outlets have several masters of which the political elite is only one. The BBC has
just the one master, the political elite, and is as sensitive as a stethoscope to the
shifting currents within that political elite.
So I wouldn't despise the BBC entirely. It tells us how the politicians want us to think.
In telling us that it sometimes gives us a bearing on what the politicians et al are doing
and what they intend to do.
The never-Trumpers will never let their dreams die. Of course, they never oppose Trump on
substantive issues like attempting a coup in Venezuela, withdrawing from the INF treaty,
supporting the nazis in Ukraine, supporting Al Qaeda forces in Syria, etc. But somehow
they're totally against him and ready to haul out the latest stupid thing he said as their
daily fodder for conversation...
renfro @ 10 said;"The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion."
Uh no, just doing their job of distracting the public, while ignoring the real issues
the
American workers care about. You know, the things DJT promised the workers, but has never
delivered.(better health care for all, ending the useless wars overseas, an
infrastructure
plan to increase good paying jobs), to name just a few.
The corporate Dems( which is the lions share of them), are bought and paid for to
distract, and they've done it well.
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and most who have come before, are of the same
ilk.
Bend over workers and lube up, for more of the same in 2020...
I profoundly disagree with the notion that Russiagate had anything to do with Hillary's
collusion with the DNC. Gosh, that is naive at best.
1) Hillary didn't need to collude against Sanders - the additional money that she got from
doing so was small change compared the to overall amount she raised for her campaign.
2) Sanders was a long-time friend of the Clintons. He boasted that he's known Hillary
for over 25 years.
3) Sanders was a sheepdog meant to keep progressives in the Democratic Party. He was
never a real candidate. He refused to attack Hillary on character issues and remained loyal
even after Hillary-DNC collusion was revealed.
When Sanders had a chance to total disgrace Hillary, he refused to do so. Hillary
repeatedly said that she had NEVER changed for vote for money but Warren had proven that
she had: Hillary changed her vote on the Bankruptcy Bill for money from the credit card
industry.
4) Hillary didn't try to bury her collusion with the DNC (as might be expected), instead
she used it to alienate progressive voters by bring Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her
campaign.
5) Hillary also alienated or ignored other important constituencies: she wouldn't
support an increase in the minimum wage but accepted $750,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
speech; she took the black vote for granted and all-but berated a Black Lives Matters
activist; and she called whites "deplorables".
Hillary threw the race to her OTHER long-time friend in the race: Trump. The
Deep-State wanted a nationalist and that's just what they got.
6) Hillary and the DNC has shown NO REMORSE whatsoever about colluding with Sanders and
Sanders has shown no desire whatsoever to hold them accountable.
IMO Russiagate (Russian influence on Trump) and accusations of "Russian meddling" in the
election are part of the same McCarthyist psyop to direct hate at Russia and stamp out any
dissent. Trump probably knowingly, played into the Deep State's psyop by:
> hiring Manafort;
> calling on Russia to release Hillary's emails;
> talking about Putin in a admiring way.
And it accomplished much more than hating on Russia:
> served as excuse for Trump to do Deep State bidding;
> distracted from the real meddling in the 2016 election;
> served as a device for settling scores:
- Assange isolated
(Wikileaks was termed an "agent of a foreign power");
- Michael Flynn forced to resign
(because he spoke to the Russian ambassador).
hopehely , Mar 23, 2019 3:49:15 PM |
link The US owes Russia an official apology. And also Russia should get its stolen
buildings and the consulate back. And maybe to get paid some compensation for the injustice
and for damages suffered. Without that, the Russiagate is not really over.
If memory serves me correctly, the initial accusations of collusion between DJT's
presidential campaign and the Kremlin came from Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company hired
by the Democratic National Committee to oversee the security of its computers and databases.
This was done to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a personal
server at home to conduct government business during her time as US State Secretary (2009 -
2013), business which among other things included plotting with the US embassy in Libya (and
the then US ambassador Chris Stevens) to overthrow Muammar Gaddhafi's government in 2011, and
conspiring also to overthrow the elected government in Honduras in 2010.
The business of Christopher Steele's dossier (part or even most of which could have been
written by Sergei Skripal, depending on who you read) and George Papadopoulos' conversation
with the half-wit Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer in London were brought in to bolster
the Russiagate claims and make them look genuine.
As B says, Crowdstrike does indeed have a Ukrainian nationalist agenda: its founder and
head Dmitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council (the folks who fund
Bellingcat's crapaganda) and which itself receives donations from Ukrainian oligarch Viktor
Pinchuk. Crowdstrike has some association with one of the Chalupa sisters (Alexandra or
Andrea - I can't be bothered dredging through DuckDuckGo to check which - but one of them was
employed by the DNC) who donated money to the Maidan campaign that overthrew Viktor
Yanukovych's government in Kiev in February 2014.
thanks b... i would like russiagate to be finished, but i tend to see it much like kadath
@2.. the link @2 is worth the read as a reminder of how far the usa has sunk in being a
nation of passive neocons... emptywheel can't say no to this as witnessed by her article
from today.. ) as a consequence, i agree with @14 dh-mtl's conclusion - "It looks today
like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of many indicators."
the irony for those of us who don't live in the usa, is we are going to have watch this
sad state of affairs continue to unravel, as the usa and the west continue to unravel in
tandem.. the msm as corporate mouthpiece is not going to be tell us anything of relevance..
instead it will be continued madcow, or maddow bullshit 24-7... amd as kadath notes @2 - if
any of them are to step up as a truth teller - they will be marginalized or silenced... so
long as the mainstream swallow what they are fed in the msm, the direction of the titanic is
still on track...
@19 hopehely... you can forget about anything like that happening..
What Difference Does it Make?
They don't really need Russia-gate anymore. It bought them time. As we speak nuclear bombers
make runs near Russian borders every day and Russian consulates get attacked with heavy
weaponry in the EU and no Russian outlet is even making a reference,while Israel is ready to
move heavy artillery in to Golan targeting Russia bases in Syria and China raking all their
deals for civilian projects in the Med.
Russia got stuffed in the corner getting all the punches.
What a horrible witch hunt, but the msm will keep on denying and keep creating new hoaxes
about Trump, Russia.
Heck the media even deny there was no collussion, they keep spinning it in different ways!
Thanks for citing Caitlin Johnstone's wonderful epitaph, b--Russiavape indeed!
During the fiasco, the Outlaw US Empire provided excellent proof to the world that it does
everything it accused Russia of doing and more, while Russia's cred has greatly risen.
Meanwhile, there're numerous other crimes Trump, his associates, Clinton, her
associates--like Pelosi--ought to be impeached, removed from office, arrested, then tried in
court, which is diametrically opposed to the current--false--narrative.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 23, 2019 4:47:39 PM |
link
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.
Yes, absolutely. And not just regarding the world's future, but even if you happen to be
in the same building with one of them and he/she bursts into your already smoke-filled room
yelling that the house is on fire.
Btw, whatever authority has ever ruled that "ex-MI6 dude" Steele (who doesn't remind me of
steel at all, but rather of a certain nondescript entity named Anthony Blair) is in fact
merely 'EX'? He himself? The organisation? The Queen perhaps?
Expose them at every opportunity, they should not get away with this like nothing
happend:
If you think a single Russiagate conspiracist is going to be held accountable for media
malpractice, you clearly haven't been awake the past 2 decades. No one will pay for being
wrong. This profession is as corrupt & rotten as the kleptocracy it serves
defeatism isn't the answer -- should remind & mock these hacks every opportunity.
Just need to be aware of the beast we're up against.
The establishment plays on peoples fears and so we all sink together as we all cling to
our "lesser evils", tribal allegiances, and try to avoid the embarrassment of being
wrong.
Although everyone is aware of the corruption and insider dealing, no one seems to want to
acknowledge the extent, or to think critically so as to reveal any more than we already
know.
It's almost as though corruption (the King's nudity) is a national treasure and revealing
it would be a national security breach in the exceptional nation.
And so to the Deep State cabal continues to rule unimpeded.
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2019 2:09:31 PM | 4
You people don't get it do you?
'The Plan' was to get rid of Turkey-Russia-Israel (and a few others) with one fell
swoop....
Russia gate was both a diversion from the real collusions (Russian Mafia , China and Israel)
and a clever ruse to allow Trump to back off from his campaign promise to improve relations
with Russia. US policy toward Russia is no different under Trump than it was during Obamas
administration. Exactly what the Russia Gaters wanted and Trump delivered.
That Mueller could find nothing more than some tax/money laundering/perjury charges in
which the culprits in the end get pardoned is hardly surprising given his history. Want
something covered up? Put Mueller on it.
To show how afraid Trump was of Mueller he appointed his long term friend Barr as AJ and
pretended he didn't know how close they were when it came out. There is no lie people wont
believe. Lol
Meanwhile Trumps Russian Mafia connections stay under the radar in MSM, Trump continues as
Bibi's sock puppet, the fake trade war with China continues as Ivanka is rolling in China
trademarks .
The Rothschild puppet that bailed out Trumps casinos as Commerce Secretary overseeing
negotiations that will open the doors for more US and EU (they willy piggy back on the deal
like hyenas) jobs to go to China (this time in financial/services) and stronger IPR
protections that will facilitate this transfer, and will provide companies more profits in
which to buyback stocks but wont bring manufacturing jobs back.
The collusion story has been hit badly and it will likely lose its momentum, but I wonder how
far reaching this loss of momentum is. There are many variants. The 'unwitting accomplice' is
an oxymoron which isn't finished yet. The Russians hacking the election: not over. The
Russians sowing discord and division. Not over. Credibility of the Russiagate champions
overall? Not clear. Some could take a serious hit. Brennan and other insiders who made it
onto cable tv?
It is possible that the whole groupthink about Russiagate changes drastically
and that 'the other claims' also lose their credibility but it's far from certain. After
years of building up tension Russia's policies are also changing. I think they have shown
restraint but their paranoia and aggressiveness is also increasing and some claims will
become true after all.
"Russiagate" has always been a meaningless political fraud.
When folks like Hillary Clinton sign on to something and give it a great deal of weight,
you really do know you are talking about an empty bag of tricks. She is a psychopathic liar,
one with a great deal of blood on her hands.
My problem with this official result is that it may tend to give Trump a boost, new
credibility.
The trouble with Trump has never been Russia - something only blind ideologues and people
with the minds of children believe - it is that he is genuinely ignorant and genuinely
arrogant and loud-mouthed - an extremely dangerous combination.
And in trying to defend himself, this genuine coward has completely surrendered American
foreign policy to its most dangerous enemies, the Neocons.
Blaming Russiagate on Hillary is very easy for those who hate her or hope that Trump will
deliver on his faux populist fake-agenda.
No one wants to contemplate the possibility that Hillary and Trump, and the duopoly they
lead, fixed the election and planned Russiagate in advance.
It seems a bridge too far, even for the smart skeptics at MoA.
So funny.
Trump has proven himself to be a neocon. He broke his campaign promise to investigate
Hillary within DAYS of being elected. He has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his
Administration.
Yet every one turns from the possibility that the election was fixed. LOL.
The horrible possibility that our "democracy" is managed is too horrible to contemplate.
Lets just blame it all on Hillary.
Those who have been holding their breath for two years can finally exhale. I guess the fever
of hysteria will have to be attended a while longer. A malady of this kind does not easily
die out overnight. Those who have been taken in, and duped for so long, can not so easily
recover. The weight of so much cognitive dissonance presses down on them like a boulder. The
dust of the stampeded herd behind Russiagate is enough paralyze the will of those who have
succumbed.
As Joseph Conrad once wrote, "The ways of human progress are inscrutable."
Russiagate is a pendulum, it reached the dead point, it would hange in the air for a moment,
then it would start swinging right backwards at full speed crashign everything in the way!
It would be revealed, it was Russia who paid Muller to start that hysteria and stole money
from American tax-payers and make America an international laughing stock. "Putin benefited
from it", highly likely!
Muller's investigation is paid for with Manafort's seized cash and property and Manafort
has made Yanukovich king of Ukraine, so Manafort is Putin's agent, so Muller is working of
Putin's money, so it was Putin's collusion everything that Muller is doing! Highly
likely.
There is no "Liberal Media". Those whom claim to be Liberal and yet support the Warmonger
Democratic Party (Republican lite) are frauds. Liberalism does not condone war and it most
certainly does not support wars of aggression - especially those wars waged against
defenseless nations. Neither can liberalism support trade sanctions or the subjugation of
Palestinians in the Apartheid State of ISreal.
We must be very careful with the words we choose, in order to paint the correct
conjuncture and not to throw the bathtub with the baby inside.
It's one thing to say Bernie Sanders is not a revolutionary; it's another completely
different thing to say he was in cahoots with the Clintons.
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary. Not only he chose to do so, but he only didn't win
because the DNC threw all its weight against him.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist. He's an imperialist who believes the
spoils of the empire should be also used to build a Scandinavian-style Welfare State for the
American people only. A cynic would tell you this would make him a Nazi without the race
theme, but you have to keep in mind societies move in a dialectical patern, not a linear one:
if you preach for "democratic socialism", you're bringing the whole package, not only the
bits you want.
I believe the rise of Bernie Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it
exists. Americans are more aware of their own contradictions (more enlightened) now than
before he disputed those faithful primaries of 2016. And the most important ingredient for
that, in my opinion, was the fact he was crushed by both parties; that the "establishment"
acted in unison not to let him get near the WH. That was a didactic moment for the American
people (or a signficant part of it).
But I agree Russiagate went well beyond just covering the Clintons' dirt in the DNC.
It may have be born like that, but, if that was the case, the elites quickly realized it
had other, ampler practical uses. The main one, in my opinion, was to drive a wedge between
Trump's Clash of Civilizations's doctrine -- which perceives China as the main long term
enemy, and Russia as a natural ally of the West -- and the public opinon. The thing is most
of the American elite is far too dependent on China's productive chain; Russia is not, and
can be balkanized.
There is a funny video compilation of the TV talking heads predicting the end of Trump, new
bombshells, impeachment, etc., over the last two years.
Unfortunately, the same sort of compilation could be made of sane people predicting "this new
information means the end of Russiagate" over the same time period.
The truth is that the truth doesn't matter, only the propaganda, and it has not stopped, only
spun onto new hysteria.
As others have said, hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been
wrong all along. They have too much emotional investment in the grand conspiracy theory to
simply let it go. Rather, they will forever point to what they believe are genuine bits of
evidence and curse Mueller for not following the leads. And the Dems in the House of
Representatives will waste more time and resources on pointless investigations in an effort
to keep the public sufficiently distracted from more important matters, such as the endless
wars and coups that they support. A pox on all their houses, both Democrats and
Republicans.
"...hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been wrong all along."
Wrong about what? There seems to be "narrative" operative here that there are only two
positions on this matter: the "right" one and the "wrong" one and nothing else.
Ben's and other comments might make this a little bit superfluous but it's short.
A case of divide and conquer against the population
This time it was a fabricated scandal.
Continued control over "facts" and narratives, the opportunity for efficient misdirection
and distraction, stealing and wasting other people's time and effort, spurious disagreements,
wearing down relations.
The illusion of choice, (false) opposition, blinded "oversight", and mythical claims
concerning a civilian government (in the case of the US: "of, for, and by" or something like
that).
Who knew or knows is irrelevant as long as the show goes on. There's nothing to prove
anything significant about who if anyone may or may not be behind the curtain and thus on
towards the next big or small scandal we go because people will be dissatisfied and hungry
and ready to bite as hard as possible on some other bait for or against something.
Maybe "Russiagate" was impeccably engineered or maybe it organically outcompeted other
distractions on offer that would ultimately also waste enormous amounts of time and
effort.
Management by crisis
The scandals, crises, "Science says" games and rubbish, outrage narratives, and any other
manipulations attempt and perhaps succeed at controlling the US and the world through
spam.
Jonathan @39: Of course it was fixed. That's what the Electoral College is for.
Well, you can say the same think about money-as-speech , gerrymandering, voter
suppression, etc. Despite all these, Americans believe that their democracy works.
I contend that what we witnessed in 2016 was a SHOW. Like American wrestling. It was
(mostly) fake. The proper term for this is kayfabe .
My advice to the yanks mourning Russiagate: move to the UK. The sick Brits will keep the
Russia hating cult alive even after they spend a decade puking over Brexit.
Jackrabbit @18
So, you don't think HRC qualifies as a nationalist? She can't fake populist, but she can do
nationalist.
I also think she is much too ambitious to have intentionally thrown the election. It was her
turn dammit! Take a look at her behavior as First Lady if you think she's the kind of
personality that is content to wield power from behind the scenes.
They didn't fall for the Steele dossier. I recall that emptywheel had discredited the dossier
during the election as it was known to have been rejected by major media outlets leading up
to the election. I think they merely fell behind the others as the outgoing administration,
the Democrats, the CIA, and the media chose to use the dossier to 'blackmail' Trump.
The most important fruit of russiagate, from the view of the establishment of the hegemon, is
that America has now taken a giant step towards full bore censorship.
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's
that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him
and Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax
returns. Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the
press asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns). Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate,
meaningless astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like
open borders. These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the
Democrats and another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character
issues and to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other
examples: Bernie refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's
well known work to squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer
Flowers), and didn't talk about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make")
and her glee at the overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find
that even a little bit strange?
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him and
Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax returns.
Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the press
asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns) . Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate, meaningless
astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like open borders.
These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the Democrats and
another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and
to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other examples: Bernie
refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's well known work to
squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer Flowers), and didn't talk
about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make") and her glee at the
overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find that
even a little bit strange?
mourning dove @57: Exactly! It's the Electoral College that decides elections, not
voters.
Do you think Hillary didn't know that? She refused to campaign in the three mid-western
states that would've won her the electoral college. Each of the states were won by Trump by a
thin margin.
Gosh and Blimey!
Comment #56 in a thread about an utterly corrupt political system and no-one has mentioned
the pro-"Israel" Lobby?
Words fail me. So I'll use someone else's...
From Xymphora March 21, 2019.
"Truth or Trope?" (Sailer):
"Of the top 50 political donors to either party at the federal level in 2018, 52 percent
were Jewish and 48 percent were gentile. Individuals who identify as Jewish are usually
estimated to make up perhaps 2.2 percent of the population.
Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34
percent from gentiles.
Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50
donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.
Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from
Jewish givers.
So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about
the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about
it: 76 percent is a lot."
Next up another false flag operation. The thing is, it would have be non-trivial and
involving the harming of people to jolt the narrative back to that favoring the deep state.
And taking off the proverbial media table, that Mueller found no collusion. Yes, election in
2016 no collusion, but Putin was behind the latest horrific false flag, "oh look, Trump is
not confronting Putin"...
Not even getting into the "treason", "putin's c*ckholster", "what's the time on Moscow,
troll!" crap we've been subjected to for 3 years, please enjoy this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0.
I've said before that she's a terrible strategist and she ran a terrible campaign and she's
terribly out of touch. I think she expected a cake walk and was relying on Trump being so
distasteful to voters that they'd have no other option.
I think Trump legitimately won the election and I don't believe for a second that she won the
popular vote. There were so many problems with the election but since they were on the losing
side, nobody cares. In 2012 I didn't know anyone else who was voting for Jill Stein, way too
many people were still in love with Obama. She got .4% of the vote. In 2016 most of the
people I knew were voting for Jill Stein, she drew a large crowd from DemExit, but they say
she got .4% of the vote. Total bullshit. There was also ballot stuffing and lots of other
problems, but it still wasn't enough.
I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her
elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and
the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way.
Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough
to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has
helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller
to prove.
It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that
Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the
"national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify
the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon.
It is time to build
cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony.
Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it.
The truth will work better.
"... RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there. ..."
"... And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now worthless. ..."
"... They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. ..."
"... The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion." ..."
"... It's clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. ..."
"... If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb. ..."
"... If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate. ..."
"... And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us. ..."
"... Hillary is the epitome of evil. ..."
"... I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice, Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. ..."
"... Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for becoming elected. ..."
"... Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because it was her turn to get elected". ..."
"... HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH ..."
"... It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be nobody to hold them responsible ..."
"... When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself. ..."
During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all
roads lead to Hillary Clinton.
Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including
'Miss' Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.
Robert Mueller's investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of
nothing. It did this admirably.
It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has
been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos
Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of
their neoliberal, globalist agenda.
Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the
Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian
notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant
land.
Hillary's failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry
list of purposes to cover it:
Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect
the outcome of the election
Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our
political system
Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump's guilt.
Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive
corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them
against him through prosecutor overreach.
Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she
failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this
tells you is that Hillary has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started
everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.
Burnin' Down da House
Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else's life
so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It's the sin of Cain. She envies what Trump has,
the Presidency. And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how
much damage it would do. She's worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.
Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there's little stopping
us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.
Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won't give her. And that animus drove her to
blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.
And that's what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable
narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there
are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.
Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with
everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry. It
didn't work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or
perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.
Andrew Weissman's resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would
pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further. Just like so many other
politicians.
Vote Your Pocketbook
With respect to Brexit I've been convinced that it would come down to reputations. Would the
British MP's vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU? Would
Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to
Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end? Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They
will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always
headed here if he couldn't get someone to betray Trump.
And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his
reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now
worthless.
They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she
has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. The
progressives that were convinced of Trump's treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away
like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after
they get over their denial.
Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals
to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands
for re-election.
The Wolves Beckon
The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on
everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the
RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave. Then she backed off on impeachment talk.
Oops....
... ... ...
The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something
dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time.
Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion."
It's clear that RussiaGate is
a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall
on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. There is only one answer. And Obama's
people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that " Hillary would
indict herself. " And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down
led to this moment.
The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn't win the mid-terms.
But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then
all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.
Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any
one person. Hillary is expendable. Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to
defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise
above the benefits, change happens fast. If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this
country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason
anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.
We all know it's the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the
MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.
And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.
I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch,
Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice,
Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. Think of the
taxpayer money wasted on this ridiculous Mueller investigation! The Roger Stone arrest was an
outrage. Who tipped off CNN? Who ordered it? What was with the attack dogs and machine guns?
And now we have Nadler trying to destroy anyone and everyone who ever did business with
Trump. All those 80 people who got letters from him asking for documents will now be
bankrupted by legal fees.
According to Scott Adams, one recipient is refusing to
cooperate -- he's saying "I can't afford for me and family to be destroyed." He put the request
for documents in a drawer. He has no money for lawyers.
This insanity and abuse of power has
got to stop. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in Congress. We're all looking at censorship,
tilted search engines, de-monetization, being beat up on campus for trying to express an
opinion, being accosted in a restaurant (or, VP Pence, from the stage ("Hamilton"), getting
sucker-punched for wearing a MAGA hat, having elections stolen through myriad Dem cheating
methods, and NOTHING is being done.
Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian
meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate
cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a
Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for
becoming elected.
Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately
sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also
raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The
damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of
treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a
war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections
and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because
it was her turn to get elected".
It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of
Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be
nobody to hold them responsible.
When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to
justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they
were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself.
"... No one says Trump is a saint. But the deep state wanted to cover its tracks. Dems and deep state hated that their preferred candidate didn't win. They ended up achieving their goal of delegitimizing 2016 and distracting the country for 2 years. ..."
"... They tried to delegitimize the 2016 Election but failed to do so. ..."
The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away: not one single American was charged,
indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election - not even a low-level volunteer. The number is zero.
Compare what cable hosts (let's leave them unnamed) & Democratic operatives spent two years claiming this would lead to - the
imprisonment of Don, Jr., Jared, even Trump on conspiracy-with-Russia charges - to what it actually produced. A huge media reckoning
is owed.
Don't even try to pretend the point of the Mueller investigation from the start wasn't to obtain prosecutions of Americans guilty
of conspiring with Russia to influence the outcome of the election or that Putin controlled Trump through blackmail. Nobody will
believe your denials.
Are we now ready to rid ourselves of the thrilling espionage fantasy that Trump is controlled by Putin and the Kremlin using blackmail?
There's no way Robert Mueller would have gone 18 months without telling anyone about this if it were true, right? How could that
be justified?
Perhaps now we can focus on the actually consequential actions the Trump administration is taking and finally move past the deranged
conspiracy theories that have drowned US discourse for 2+ years. A side benefit will be not ratcheting up tension between 2 nuclear-armed
powers.
Giving up these exciting conspiracy theories about international blackmail & convening panels to decipher all the genius hidden
maneuvers of Mueller will be bad for cable ratings, book sales & the Patreon accounts of online charlatans. But it'll be very healthy
in all other ways.
The desperate attempts to salvage something from this debacle by the Mueller dead-enders are just sad. Yes, the public hasn't
read the Mueller report. But we *know* he ended his investigation without indicting a single American for conspiring with Russia
to influence the election
Trump, Jr. testified for hours and hours before Congress, including about the Trump Tower meeting. If he lied there, or to Mueller,
why didn't Mueller indict him for perjury, lying to Congress or obstruction? Same questions for Kushner. Stop embarrassing yourselves.
If Mueller found evidence that Putin controls Trump & forces him to act against US interests & in favor of Russia - not just with
a pee-pee tape but with financial blackmail - what could possibly justify keeping that a secret through the end of the investigation?
It's ludicrous.
US discourse has been drowned for 2+ years with conspiratorial, unhinged, but highly inflammatory and unhinged idiocy - playing
games with two nuclear-armed powers because of anger over the 2016 election. It's time to stop. Mueller ended his work. We see the
public indictments.
So many in the media devoted endless airtime & print & pixels misleading people to believe Mueller was coming to arrest & prosecute
Trump, Jr, Kushner & so many others for conspiring with Russia over the election & obstruction. None of that happened. You can't
pretend it away.
They was never the point. No one says Trump is a saint. But the deep state wanted to cover its tracks. Dems and deep state hated
that their preferred candidate didn't win. They ended up achieving their goal of delegitimizing 2016 and distracting the country
for 2 years.
for the first time in weeks (months?) i don't see anything about mueller or russia on the
featured articles at the guardian. are they implicitly going to admit it was all bullshit,
without ever acknowledging it? (by "they" i mean the msm).
"... Halper is reportedly a longtime CIA and FBI informant, and has been involved in US politics at the highest levels for decades, becoming George H.W. Bush's National Director for Policy Development during his presidential campaign. After Bush lost to Reagan, Halper worked as Reagan's Deputy Assistant Secretary of State - where he served under three different Secretaries . ..."
"... He then became a senior advisor to the Department of Defense and DOJ between 1984 and 2001. Halper's former father-in-law was Ray Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA . He also allegedly spied on the Carter administration - collecting information on foreign policy (an account disputed by Ray Cline). ..."
A top FBI official admitted to Congressional investigators last year
that the agency had contacts within the Trump campaign as part of operation "Crossfire
Hurricane," which sounds a lot like FBI "informant" Stefan Halper - a former Oxford University
professor who was
paid over $1 million by the Obama Department of Defense between 2012 and 2018, with nearly
half of it surrounding the 2016 US election.
According to portions of transcripts published on Tuesday by the
Epoch Times of a Aug. 31, 2018 deposition by Trisha Anderson, the FBI relied on sources who
"already had campaign contacts" in order to surveil the Trump team.
"To my knowledge, the FBI did not place anybody within a campaign but, rather, relied upon
its network of sources, some of whom already had campaign contacts, including the source that
has been discussed in the media at some length beyond Christopher Steele ," said Anderson - who
was the #2 attorney at the FBI's Office of General Counsel, and had extensive involvement with
the Trump counterintelligence investigation.
Halper is reportedly a longtime CIA and FBI informant, and has been involved in US politics
at the highest levels for decades, becoming George H.W. Bush's National Director for Policy
Development during his presidential campaign. After Bush lost to Reagan, Halper worked as
Reagan's Deputy Assistant Secretary of State - where he served under three different Secretaries
.
He then became a senior advisor to the Department of Defense and
DOJ between 1984 and 2001. Halper's former father-in-law was Ray Cline, former Deputy Director
of the CIA . He also allegedly spied on the Carter administration - collecting information
on foreign policy (an account disputed by Ray Cline).
Halper's involvement in surveilling the Trump campaign was exposed by the Daily Caller 's
Chuck Ross, who reported that the 74-year-old spook was enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy
on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election .
Halper received a DoD contract from the Obama administration for $411,575 - made in two payments, and had a
start date of September 26, 2016 - three days after a September 23
Yahoo! News article by Michael Isikoff about Trump aide Carter Page, which used information
fed to Isikoff by "pissgate" dossier creator Christopher Steele . The FBI would use the Yahoo!
article along with the unverified "pissgate" dossier as
supporting evidence in an FISA warrant application for Page. Halper approached Page during
an election-themed conference at Cambridge on July 11, 2016, six weeks after the September 26
DoD award start date. The two would stay in contact for the next 14 months, frequently meeting
and exchanging emails .
He said that he first encountered the informant during a conference in mid-July of 2016
and that they stayed in touch. The two later met several times in the Washington area. Mr.
Page said their interactions were benign. -
New York Times
And as the Daily Caller reports, Halper used a decades-old association with Paul Manafort to
break the ice with Page.
In September 2016, the FBI would send Halper to further probe Trump aide George Papadopoulos
on an allegation he made that Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. According to Papadopoulos
in an interview with Dan Bongino, Halper angrily accused him of working with Russia before
storming out of a meeting.
Halper essentially began interrogating Papadopoulos, saying that it's "obviously in your
interest to be working with the Russians" and to "hack emails." " You're complicit with
Russia in this, isn't that right George " Halper told him. Halper also inquired about
Hillary's hacked emails, insinuating that Papadopoulos possessed them. Papadopoulos denied
knowing anything about this and asked to be left alone. -
Bongino.com
All of these blatant crimes done by the Democrat cheerleading swamp creatures NEVER get
investigated and I am starting to wonder what the hell Trump is doing. Is he stupid or is all
of this just a charade and they are all on the same team. How could this creep Rod Rosenstein
have been left at his position until this time? It makes no sense to me. Sure all of these
rodents have control files on each other but come on how scared are they? It's ridiculous. If
Trump soon gets impeached I'll hold him responsible himself for not doing anything.
They are all on the same team. Trump was never your saviour. He was designed to be a
distraction so the 0.01% that own both parties can rape you some more.
Correct. It's all a big lie and show for the uninformed masses. God help these liars when
all the Qanon followers wake up to this truth. All this 'tremendous winning' bs will
boomerang back big time.
The above Halper story has been circulating for about a year now, so this isn`t
actually big news. As for the FBI and the CIA subverting just about every political campaign
or social movement in existence: Well, duh. The deep state and its satanic minions will
remain in control as long as such "intelligence" and State Security agencies (the FBI is
essentially nothing but a US version of the SS) are allowed to exist.
Alex Acosta works out an illegal deal for Epstein = Trump gives Acosta a cabinet position
= Trump is a protector of Pedo protectors = Trump doesn't give 2 shits about Pedos
That's a natural reaction to the revelation of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy FBI
director, that top Justice Department officials, alarmed by Donald Trump's firing of former
Bureau director James Comey, explored a plan to invoke the 25th Amendment and kick the duly
elected president out of office.
According to New York Times reporters Adam Goldman and Matthew Haag, McCabe made the
statement in an NBC 60 Minutes interview to be aired on Sunday. He also reportedly said
that McCabe wanted the so-called Russia collusion investigation to go after Trump for
obstructing justice in firing Comey and for any instances they could turn up of his working in
behalf of Russia.
The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment was discussed, it seems, at two meetings on May
16, 2017. According to McCabe, top law enforcement officials pondered how they might recruit
Vice President Pence and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing, to the Senate's
president pro tempore and the House speaker, that the president was "unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office." That would be enough, under the 25th Amendment, to install
the vice president as acting president, pushing aside Trump.
But to understand what kind of constitutional crisis this would unleash and the precedent it
would set, it's necessary to ponder the rest of this section of the 25th Amendment. The text
prescribes that, if the president, after being removed, transmits to the same congressional
figures that he is indeed capable of discharging his duties, he shall once again be president
after four days. But if the vice president and the cabinet majority reiterate their declaration
within those four days that the guy can't govern, Congress is charged with deciding the issue.
It then takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to keep the president removed, which would have
to be done within 21 days, during which time the elected president would be sidelined and the
vice president would govern. If Congress can't muster the two-thirds majority within the
prescribed time period, the president "shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
It's almost impossible to contemplate the political conflagration that would ensue under
this plan. Citizens would watch those in Washington struggle with the monumental question of
the fate of their elected leader under an initiative that had never before been invoked, or
even considered, in such circumstances. Debates would flare up over whether this comported with
the original intent of the amendment; whether it was crafted to deal with physical or mental
"incapacitation," as opposed to controversial actions or unsubstantiated allegations or even
erratic decision making; whether such an action, if established as precedent, would destabilize
the American republic for all time; and whether unelected bureaucrats should arrogate to
themselves the power to set in motion the downfall of a president, circumventing the
impeachment language of the Constitution.
For the past two years, the country has been struggling to understand the two competing
narratives of the criminal investigation of the president.
One narrative -- let's call it Narrative A -- has it that honorable and dedicated federal
law enforcement officials developed concerns over a tainted election in which nefarious Russian
agents had sought to tilt the balloting towards the candidate who wanted to improve
U.S.-Russian relations and who seemed generally unseemly. Thus did the notion emerge, quite
understandably, that Trump had "colluded" with Russian officials to cadge a victory that
otherwise would have gone to his opponent. This narrative is supported and protected by
Democratic figures and organizations, by adherents of the "Russia as Threat" preoccupation, and
by anti-Trumpers everywhere, particularly news outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post
, and The New York Times .
The other view -- Narrative B -- posits that certain bureaucratic mandarins of the
national security state and the outgoing Obama administration resolved early on to thwart
Trump's candidacy. After his election, they determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel.
The McCabe revelation won't affect the battle of the two narratives. As ominous and
outrageous as this "deep state" behavior may seem to those who embrace Narrative B, it will be
seen by Narrative A adherents as evidence that those law enforcement officials were out there
heroically on the front lines protecting the republic from Donald J. Trump.
And those Narrative A folks won't have any difficulty tossing aside the fact that McCabe was
fired as deputy FBI director for violating agency policy in leaking unauthorized information to
the news media. He then allegedly violated the law in lying about it to federal investigators
on four occasions, including three times while under oath.
Indeed, Narrative A people have no difficulty at all brushing aside serious questions posed
by Narrative B people. McCabe is a likely liar and perjurer? Doesn't matter. Peter Strzok, head
of the FBI's counterespionage section, demonstrated his anti-Trump animus in tweets and emails
to Justice official Lisa Page? Irrelevant. Christopher Steele's dossier of dirt on Trump,
including an allegation that the Russians were seeking to blackmail and bribe him, was compiled
by a man who had demonstrated to a Justice Department official that he was "desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected and passionate about him not being president"? Not important. The
dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party? Immaterial.
Nothing in the dossier was ever substantiated? So what?
Now we have a report from a participant of those meetings that top officials of the
country's premier law enforcement entity sat around and pondered how to bring down a sitting
president they didn't like. The Times even says that McCabe "confirmed" an earlier
report that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested wearing a wire in meetings with
Trump to incriminate him and make him more vulnerable to the plot.
There is no suggestion in McCabe's interview pronouncements or in the words of Scott Pelley,
who conducted the interview and spoke to CBS This Morning about it, that these federal
officials ever took action to further the aim of unseating the president. There doesn't seem to
be any evidence that they approached cabinet members or the vice president about it. "They were
speculating, 'This person would be with us, this person would not be,' and they were counting
noses in that effort," said Pelley. He added, apparently in response to Rosenstein's
insistence that his comments about wearing a wire were meant as a joke, "This was not perceived
to be a joke."
What are we to make of this? Around the time of the meetings to discuss the 25th Amendment
plot, senior FBI officials also discussed initiating a national security investigation of the
president as a stooge of the Russians or perhaps even a Russian agent. These talks were
revealed by The New YorkTimes and CNN in January, based on closed-door
congressional testimony by former FBI general counsel James Baker. You don't have to read very
carefully to see that the reporters on these stories brought to them a Narrative A sensibility.
The Times headline: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on
Behalf of Russia." CNN's: "Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was 'following
directions' of Russia." And of course, whoever leaked those hearing transcripts almost surely
did so to bolster the Narrative A version of events.
The independent journalist Gareth Porter, writing at Consortium News, offers a penetrating
exposition of the inconsistencies, fallacies, and fatuities of the Narrative A matrix, as
reflected in how the Times and CNN handled the stories that resulted from what were
clearly self-interested leaks.
Porter notes that a particularly sinister expression in May 2017 by former CIA director
John O. Brennan, a leading Trump antagonist, has precipitated echoes in the news media ever
since, particularly in the Times . Asked in a committee hearing if he had intelligence
indicating that anyone in the Trump campaign was "colluding with Moscow," Brennan dodged the
question. He said his experience had taught him that "the Russians try to suborn individuals,
and they try to get them to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly."
Of course you can't collude with anybody unwittingly. But Brennan's fancy expression has the
effect of expanding what can be thrown at political adversaries, to include not just conscious
and nefarious collaboration but also policy advocacy that could be viewed as wrongheaded or
injurious to U.S. interests. As Porter puts it, "The real purpose is to confer on national
security officials and their media allies the power to cast suspicion on individuals on the
basis of undesirable policy views of Russia rather than on any evidence of actual collaboration
with the Russian government."
That seems to be what's going on here. There's no doubt that McCabe and Rosenstein and
Strzok and Brennan and Page and many others despised Trump and his resolve to thaw relations
with Russia. They viewed him as a president "who needed to be reined in," as a CNN report
described the sentiment among top FBI officials after the Comey firing.
So they expanded the definition of collusion to include "unwitting" collaboration in order
to justify their machinations. It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would
take such a cavalier attitude toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body
politic.
Now we learn that they actually sat around and plotted how to distort the Constitution, just
as they distorted the rules of official behavior designed to hold them in check, in order to
destroy a presidential administration placed in power by the American people. It's getting more
and more difficult to dismiss Narrative B.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the
author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. MORE FROM THIS
AUTHOR
You're right, it didn't change a thing in the full-throated support to depose an elected
President they disagree with. The bureaucratic cabal has long had a more informal absolute
veto over who can even run for President. This guy challenged that hegemony of insider power
brokers, and caused the revelation that we have morphed into a Potemkin-style, managed
democracy, in which we don't choose who gets to run, just which of their choices we are allowed
to approve.
Such is the decadent trajectory, of republics that transition into empires, where
democratic accountabilty to the governed, domestic and foreign, decays in favor of empire
administrators and their elite beneficiaries and their sinecures at the expense of the
majority.
People rail against Trump as some sort of would-be Caesar, but he is elected, while those
permanent unaccountable "national security" czars acting in secrecy they are willing to
transfer all power to, are not.
No form of popular government can survive when secret police recording everything and spying
on the population become the real power.
"It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would take such a cavalier attitude
toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body politic."
What we don't want to recognize is that people in such positions are, in fact, just that
dumb. It is unfortunately true. While not a Trump supporter, I would be out on the streets with
them if these jacka$$es had tried to pull this off. They should ALL be immediately terminated
and any benefits revoked.
Last night (Feb 14, 2019) Tucker Carlson interviewed retired Harvard law professor Alan
Dershowitz (1:04-3:36):
Carlson: "Professor, thanks very much for coming on. So now the suspicions of many are
confirmed by one of the players in it. The Department of Justice discussed trying to remove the
President using the 25 Amendment. What's your reaction to that?
Dershowitz: "Well, if that's true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d'état.
Relating to what your former guest said, let's take the worst case scenario: Let's assume the
President of the United States was in bed with the Russians, committed treason, committed
obstruction of justice -- the 25 Amendment simply is irrelevant to that. That's why you have an
impeachment provision. The 25th amendment is about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It's about a
president being shot and not being able to perform his office. It's not about the most
fundamental disagreements. It's not about impeachable offenses. And any Justice Department
official who even mentioned the 25th Amendment in the context of President Trump has committed
a grievous offense against the Constitution. The framers of the 25th amendment had in mind
something very specific. And trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent the impeachment
provisions, or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional
power-grabbing. And you were right when you said it reminded me of what happens in third world
countries. Look, these people may have been well-intentioned. They may believe that they were
serving the interests of the United States. But you have to obey the law and the law is the
Constitution and the 25th Amendment is as clear as could be: incapacity, unable to perform
office. That's what you need. That's why you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate
agreeing. And it has to be on the basis of a medical or psychological incapacity. Not on the
basis of even the most extreme crimes -- which there is no evidence were committed -- but even
if they were, that would not be basis for invoking the 25th Amendment. And I challenge any
left-wing person to get on television and to defend the use of the 25th Amendment. I challenge
any of my colleagues who are in the "Get Trump At Any Cost" camp to come on television and
justify the use of the 25 Amendment other than for physical or psychiatric incapacity.
Carlson: I bet they're doing that right now. This is an attack on our system, I would say,
not just the President. Alan Dershowitz, thank you very much.
Dershowitz: It is an attack on our system. It's an attack on the constitution. Thank
you.
How many millions of dollars did Bill and Hill receive from Russians? How much of America's
uranium deposits did Hillary sell to Russians during her time in the Obama administration? The
New York Times informs us:
" . . . the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity
in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for
national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from
a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off
was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions
from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton
Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling
$2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an
agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in
Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank
with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
"At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease
concerns about ceding control of the company's assets to the Russians. Those promises have been
repeatedly broken, records show."
I wonder how much howling and how many allegations of "collusion" with Russia we'd be
hearing if the name Clinton were removed from the NY Times article and the name Trump were
inserted?
The article states: " top officials of the country's premier law enforcement entity sat around
and pondered how to bring down a sitting president they didn't like."
-- -- -- --
Which makes one wonder if "The rule of law" is becoming the rule of outlaws? When the
non-elected in the justice profession appear to have their own agenda.
Trump is an idiot, but his enemies in the lib-Dem-media Establishment are far worse: corrupt,
deceitful, arrogant, and lawless. Exhibit A is Andrew McCabe.
That's why I'll vote for the Idiot-in-Chief (again) in 2020. Because the alternative makes
me vomit.
"The pages of this publication drift further and further into utter insanity and
despicable defense of Trump. Stand up for the values of the Constitution, or something, but
not for this man who is no more than a self-enriching demagogue with no understanding of the
reactionary politics he uses to delude the rubes and attract asinine threadbare pieces like
this one."
Actually no. Consider me the inverse of Peter. I didn't vote for Trump due to the character
weaknesses Peter describes. However, what I see is a seriously flawed man who has served the
useful purpose of revealing an echo chamber of flawed and self-serving biases shared by the
media and political establishment of this country. I see CNN, the NY Times, the Washington
Post, and even some key leaders of our security services in a completely different light than I
did two years ago. I am thankful for the clarity. I consider Merry's article to be a
contribution in that direction.
"Peter" sez: "Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they
knew to be a criminal taking over the office of the presidency."
Weird but no one has shown any actual criminal behavior by said President. Two years later
still no charges. But Peter and these "career law enforcement officials" KNEW he was a
criminal. Then Peter appeals to the Constitution, apparently oblivious to the fact that the
Constitution doesn't make any provisions for plotting to remove the lawfully elected President
because you don't like just because you "know" he is a "criminal", in spite of any actual
evidence.
"After his election, they (the deep state) determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel."
The trouble with that is it completely ignores the ton of evidence pointing to really
nefarious stuff.
Lots of times, when there's smoke, there's fire. And when the smoke is overwhelming there
probably is a fire. A big one.
Trump has been going after the Russians since his inauguration. Therefore, those trying to
remove him from office are likely the actual Russian agents. Of course they would need smoke
and mirrors to hide that fact and deflect attention from themselves. It just so happens that
Russian spies are trained by the FSB to accuse others of being a spy, for just this purpose.
I'm looking at you, John O. (Oleg?) Brennan
No matter who the President is, there is some group of people in Washington is ALWAYS trying to
bring him down. Who those people are, and how large and powerful the group is, depends on a
variety of factors. But a competent president manages to enact his agenda while staying one
step ahead of his intriguers. Obama and GWB accomplished both, more or less because they were
intelligent men of good character (though Obama was much smarter and better man than W)
While Bill Clinton's character was too low to avoid impeachment he was a smart and able
administrator. Trump has both low character and low intellect so it is not surprising A. that
many people want to bring him down and B. that they have been pretty effective.
Politics may be a blood sport in Washington but that's not the same as a "deep state". And
Trump can't compete and win with anyone in Washington who doesn't grovel before him like the
supine Senate Republicans. And that is no one's fault but his.
You wanting Trump to be a Russian agent does not make him one. It never
will. Get over it. , ,
February 16, 2019 at 12:08 am
"If it turns out that Trump IS a Russian asset, will you apologize, Robert Merry? Because he
certainly acts like one. And, as REAL Republicans used to say, if it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
@One Guy Yeah, because sending deadly aid to Ukraine is so pro-Russian. What an idiot you
are!
"Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they knew to be a
criminal taking over the office of the presidency. Shame on them!"
They also "knew" Martin Luther King Jr. was a Soviet agent.
The issue with the 25th amendment, is that the President's character flaws or mental deficiency
were known and very visible before the election. Is it constitutionally proper for Congress to
suspend a President for a preexisting condition that was known to and unhidden from voters? If
Congress did that, it means Congress has a veto over who the public is allowed to vote in as
President.
Forget the Covington students, Andrew McCabe and his lady co-workers have some pretty punchable
faces. (Ok, I'm enough of a sexist to not punch a lady. I'd use eye-rolling and mocking
gestures instead.)
The problem is not the existence of the deep state. It's inevitable that there will be
unelected officials who will continue to shape policy regardless of who is elected President.
The problem is that the deep state is blatantly working to undermine its elected
leadership. If you can't in good conscience work with your President, the honorable thing
to do is resign as some undoubtedly have. It's not an excuse for insubordination.
They removed both Kennedy brothers. Why not to remove Trump?
Notable quotes:
"... This FBI/CIA (plus British intelligence etc.) attempt to destroy and remove an elected President will end the same way as the bank fraud that damaged the US economy 11 yrs ago. ..."
"... I think what the Intel Agencies were really concerned about was Trump's statement "wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia." They were worried about detente, not influence. Trump threatened to remove their number one bogeyman, which would put at risk trillions of dollars for the MIC. What if he dared to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty? What if he dared to share intelligence regarding terrorists with Russia, as Obama attempted before he was brought to heel? Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd" continues to ensure that Trump toes the line. The intel agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the REAL power. ..."
"... In such a world "voting" and "democracy" are simply fairy tales "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." They exist only as meaningless abstractions used to help insure we the populace remain compliant and don't take to the streets like the Yellow Vests in France. Which of course is our only chance whatsoever to in any meaningfully way impact this completely corrupt uber-violent corporate-feudal paradise we find ourselves now inhabiting. ..."
Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, in an
explosive interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," said that in early 2017, in the
aftermath of President Donald Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey, he and other
FBI officials discussed the possibility of recruiting a cabinet secretary to help push the
president out of office by using the Constitution's 25 th Amendment
McCabe further contended that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to wear a wire
when he was around Trump in order to gather evidence against him. (Rosenstein
denies the allegation.) McCabe said that Justice Department officials believed at the time
that Trump may have obstructed justice by firing Comey, and they worried that Trump was somehow
under the influence of the Russian government. In the end, nothing came of the plan. Regardless
of one's feelings toward President Trump and his policies, what McCabe is describing is nothing
less than a coup attempt. It's something that happens in weak or nascent democracies, following
interference by the CIA perhaps. It should never happen here.
Trump has long had an antagonistic relationship with the FBI, the CIA and other elements of
the intelligence community. Indeed, in early 2017, when news of the FISA warrants and the
private intelligence Steele dossier began to leak out, Trump began to tweet his disgust at news
of impending investigations of him, his campaign, and his business dealings.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded almost immediately, saying "(The president)
is being really dumb to do this." "This" was to take on the intelligence agencies, the
so-called Deep State, in public. A few days later, Schumer went on MSNBC to sharpen his warning
to Trump, saying, "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community -- they have six
ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
But Trump was right. The intelligence community -- the FBI, CIA, the NSA and other
three-letter agencies -- are too powerful, too entrenched and two well-funded. And they have
far too little oversight. They're a threat to our democracy, not the saviors of it. That is why
it pains me to see Democrats lining up behind them to attack Trump.
Presidents Come and Go
I was a member of that "Deep State" throughout my 15 years at the CIA. I can tell you from
first-hand experience that the CIA doesn't care who the president is. Neither does the FBI.
Senior CIA and FBI officers are there for decades, while presidents come and go. They know that
they can outwait any president they don't like. At the very least, at the CIA, they could made
administrative decisions that would hamstring a president: Perhaps they don't carry out that
risky operation. Maybe they don't target that well-placed source. Maybe they ignore the
president's orders knowing that in four years or eight years he or she will just go away.
Even worse, these same organizations -- the FBI and the CIA -- are the ones that have sought
to undermine our democracy over the years. Don't forget programs like COINTELPRO , the FBI's operation to force
Martin Luther King Jr. to commit
suicide ; the infiltration of peace groups; the CIA's efforts to control the media with
Operation
Mockingbird ; the CIA's illegal spying on American
citizens ; the CIA
hacking into the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and the Agency's
extrajudicial
assassination program ; to name a few.
McCabe's almost offhanded comments on "60 Minutes," that the FBI actively considered
deposing a sitting president should be cause for alarm. Set partisan politics aside for a
moment. We're talking about deposing a sitting president . We're talking about
wearing a wire to catch a sitting president saying something because you're angry that
he fired your boss. Even the idea of it is unprecedented in American history.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower
indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies.
He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's
torture program.
Hillary and the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders and gave Sanders voters a stiff
middle finger meanwhile Hillary via Bill Talked Trump into Running as a REPUBLICAN ..
Hillary was the neo con neo liberal candidate ..Trump was never supposed to win and even
he was shocked it happened ..Melania even cried .
its worse than you think
Why Did Bernie Abandon Tim Canova & Election Integrity
Also Integrity Initiative infiltrated the Sanders campaign and boosted anti-Jill Stein
messaging. The only good thing about all this investigations nonsense is that we see how
blatantly rigged and/or manipulated US elections are by intelligence agencies on top of the
pre-manipulation by the corporate giants.
Babyl-on , February 17, 2019 at 1:13 pm
Thomas Piketty in his typically tedious economic research, has shown that there is and has
been for centuries a core block of Western capital. This core capital has not in the past 500
years ever had a year of loss, they gained in profit ALWAYS no matter the empire or democracy
war or peace – that is EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
Institutions are instruments of power they are not power itself. These institutions are
given instructions by those who represent the core block of Western capital. The US
government and all its agencies serve ONLY the interests of core capital.
Today that block of core capital has grown to over 41 trillion dollars. It is the largest
block of capital anywhere in the world, it's influence is deeply saturated throughout Western
society and culture.
Peter Phillips has produced a tremendous book providing the evidence of this block of
capital and the structure which communicates its orders to the World Bank, Fed and the "deep
state" and the EU and its institutions. GIANTS: The Global Power Elite.
There are no secret societies running the world the power elites do it in plane sight. We
know their names from history and in the present. Metici, Borgas – parts of those
fortunes are in the 41 trillion. Rockefeller, Rothschild, Buffet are in the world today.
Robert Kagen and his forces which represent the 41 trillion ALWAYS get what they want and
they have for 500 years. Imagine, 500 years of taking more "profits" than any other faction
of the population. But it is not just business, there is also theft, the way England stole in
today's dollars 45 trillion dollars worth of goods from India – they simply set up a
shell game and took everything and paid nothing. This is why their fortunes grow so much
better than others – just outright theft. It is not a capitalist system, it is
Feudalism.
This basic block of Western capital is openly pro war because within the 41 trillion are
the arms corporations which they control just as one example.
The methods of this, possibly the most enduring power unit in human history, are clear
throughout the historical record. They are ruthless, ALWAYS advancing pushing probing looking
for opportunities. They never rest or give any quarter. Governments come and go, empires come
and go but the core capital under any and all conditions profits every year.
While the phrase was first written in the years after WWII "Global full spectrum
domination." has been the marching order for this capital for centuries.
This small group of elites will settle for nothing except everything. For them there is no
morality, no good guys or bad buys, just winners and losers and they have won every battle
for power and money for 500 years, even in years where things didn't go well they still made
more that the economic growth of the economy.
It is the power of that 41 trillion which is destroying the planet and making perpetual
war for their own pleasures and profit.
Talk of impeachment of a president or "The Constitution" changing the government are
useless acts unless you can come up with a plan to take the assets of these monsters and to
distribute them appropriately so that human institutions serve people instead of slaughtering
for profit elites.
It is going to be far more difficult to deal with entrenched elites with a 500 year
success record but until its power is finally dissipated.
Idimalink , February 17, 2019 at 12:08 pm
The FBI, CIA, the NSA and other three-letter agencies are the enemy. Their spooks must
exposed as perpetrators of crime; heinous crimes.
errorum propagationi , February 17, 2019 at 2:55 pm
"The FBI, CIA, the NSA and other three-letter agencies are the enemy. Their spooks must
exposed as perpetrators of crime; heinous crimes."
And yet despite the tough-talking, empty-rhetoric, Trump continues to bow to the same.
Their crimes continue. The NSA is STILL collecting all data from EVERY citizen of the U.S., yet Trump has ensured
even-greater secrecy of those actions by that agency. The CIA is STILL interfering in the politics of other countries, and STILL running
drugs.
The FBI continues to ignore crimes by the .001 percent (incluing pedophilia, child
trafficking, financial crimes, white collar crimes, etc.).
Trump continues to call for the draconian prosecution of those whom sought to expose the
actions of these agencies.
Propaganda only works when it isn't recognized as such.
Trump's actions are called the propaganda of diversion & distraction.
Both Trump and Hillary were HIGHLY unpopular, yet the mindless masses are forced into not
only accepting either, but ultimately defending the instilled "leader".
You are proof of the effectivness of that propaganda.
Trump is an Entertainer, first and foremost.
His job is to lead mere followers like you to believing the roles he plays, into accepting
the same wholly corrupted system. "Partisan" politics is increasingly being scripted like episodes of entertainment, like
the Jerry Springer show.
Have you ever bothered to consider that the largest "news" media are similarly owned by
the same corporations that own the largest entertainement media?
I used to work for a image & footage library ..the firms are using stock images, video
& sound for both their entertainment & "news". Have you ever bothered to examine the true underlying ownership of the highly consolidated
corporate media?
CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc are all largely owned by the same firms, via large stock
holdings.
Trump is an Entertainer serving each of these subsidiaries.
The viewership/ratings of each has climbed.
The more "contention" (mere diversion & distraction) Trump creates, the more the loyal
viewers of these media continue to indulge in the nonsense.
"Partisan" followers, the sheep, are doing the same of their respective parties, each of
which are controlled by the same elite.
Don't believe it, take a look at the campaign finance & investment portfolios of the
largest candidates of each party (including the "Dems", "GOP", "Progs" and
"Libertarians").
The true "Deep State" is much larger than Trump.
Those few Agents he has called-out & sought to damage, are just small cogs in the much
larger system.
Absolutely nothing has changed. The mindless masses are so easily herded. Instincts of the Herd in Peace & War – Wilfred Trotter
Propaganda – Edward Bernays
The deep state kills presidents. It why Trump has his own security ..smart move. Trump tried to take them on and was called a TRAITOR ..and criminals like Brenner and
clapper and Haden work for MSNBC and CNN now? The USSR wasnt so blatant .
Spot on. Trump is PT Barnum, not Martin Luther King. He's not fighting to "save America
from the Deep State." Trump's a clown riding a unicycle juggling chainsaws. He's a circus
charlatan, not some hero demolishing the FBI to save John Q Public from the spooks. Sheep
indeed.
Scott Hunter , February 17, 2019 at 11:49 am
Spot on!!! Accountability is the next step Integrity is the key and has always been the
key to walking a path that brings contentment.
Thank you for your service John Kiriakou!!!
Billy , February 17, 2019 at 11:47 am
The Emsils reveal Hillary cheated Bernie. She needed to distract. Brennan, Clapper and the
FBI assisted her. When she lost they switched over from distract to removal mode. The entire
MSM is also complicate in this illegal coup. They're not fake news they're propagandist.
MSM fired Ed Shultz for wanting to cover Sanders . MSM fired Jesse Ventura for being anti war . MSM fiired Phil Donahue for being against the Iraq wars .. Brennan and Clapper and Haden are proved Bush criminals who now work for the MSM and CNN
liars ,war mongers and torture enthusiasts .
I like John and the information he puts out for us. But I just don't buy this. I see this
just as I did the 2016 election cycle for the republican party. A circus of over 21
candidates and everyone and the media all against Trump. But who got all the free time in the
media and ended up being the president? I didn't buy the fake disdain from the republicans
towards Trump because I knew they were licking their chops wanting him in their. With Trump
they could take the country to the right as far as they wanted. And here we are looking at a
fascist state now. The US has leaped right into the fire of the fourth reich. All that in
2016 was us being duped into a false illusion of Trump can't possibly win while the plan was
make him win. I honestly believe the whole 2016 election cycle was one big illusion to take
over the country. A coup over the population.
Trump and these intelligence agencies are working just fine together. This is all just
another illusion as the country continues to move towards fascism with the rest of the world.
Still working together in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Africa and a list of other countries, along
with right here among us is the FBI. After all, right there in the article it states as much.
These entities and Trump essentially have the same agenda. And what we;re getting is a dose
of perception management to duped us from the reality of it being the reality. And just like
the founder of this news site has taught us, the media is the tool to make it work for
them.
Anne Jaclard , February 17, 2019 at 9:19 pm
Agree that Trump is a corporate military-intelligence flunky like his predecessors but
that doesn't justify the FBI/CIA manipulation, as it was based merely on dovish (but ignored
in office, of course) campaign rhetoric. What if Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders, or somebody
better than either of them (neither are super great) get spied upon or ousted by a militarist
cabal for the same reasons?
Jeff Harrison , February 17, 2019 at 10:40 am
It can't happen here . I'm telling you my dear, it can't happen here. – Frank Zappa
in a tune of the same name.
But, John, it already has. Mark Felt, aka Deep Throat, pissed off that he wasn't made FBI
director at Hoover's death, brought down a President, Nixon, out of personal pique. He
revealed secrets that never should have been secrets to Woodward & Bernstein and brought
Nixon down. Our evil ways in the rest of the world have come home to roost. You spoke of the
Church committee's reforms. I doubt there's much left of Frank Church's reforms. The three
letter surveillance state is the new Praetorian Guard. There is naught to be done but disband
the whole lot of 'em if we want our democracy back. I know everybody will be screaming that
Oh NO! We can't do that! But, ah, yes we can (to steal someone else's bullshit line).
The Ticoes of Costa Rica, after they got their government back from the military after a 1948
coup simply disbanded the military. No more military to junta. Haven't had a coup since.
There's two trite but very true lines:
Bullshit walks and money talks,
What goes around comes around. (and it's starting to come around. We'd better do something
about it or we will regret it. But that would mean we'd have to give up our imperial
pretensions and we all know that's not going to happen.)
anon4d2 , February 17, 2019 at 9:43 pm
We could certainly re-purpose 80% of our military to building infrastructure in developing
nations, without any opposition from them or additional expense, and improve our security and
international standing. We could completely eliminate the unconstitutional spying upon
citizens without any opposition, and use the same employees for humanitarian purposes.
But of course oligarchy must first be deposed, which historically has required invasion or
revolution. Where oligarchy controls mass media and elections, education and activism won't
get us there. Invasion is no longer a likely path. So the revolution will be the bloodiest in
history, likely after the mass media are discredited, the economy ruined by foreign embargo,
and oligarchy no longer able to provide the bread and circus needed to quell the
peasants.
If that string of disasters does not happen, we may have a permanent tyranny, a society
that explicitly accepts and honors tyranny, a curse upon humanity until its destruction.
JOHN WHITE , February 17, 2019 at 10:29 am
THEY DID NOT COME CLOSE TO A COUP..
THE COUP IS STILL GOING ON ..
So now I know what the 25th amendment to the Constitution is about. Impeachment would be
messy incapacitation would be quick and half the public, feeling helpless, would soon
forget.
Discussion of this reminds me of the things we accused the Stalin regime of doing, which
they well may have. Here today, gone tomorrow.
We cannot be sure this is all true, but the mere fact that it is floating around is
chilling. Impeachment with its uncertain outcome would be messy, using the 25th amendment
would be relatively quick if all your ducks were lined up.
Can we describe the Trump syndrome as anything else than mass hysteria. It has gotten so
bad that no matter what Trump proposes, forces go to work to prevent it from happening lest
he get credit for it. The merit of what he proposes, be damned, it's his idea and we are not
going to let it happen.
Who and what is at risk. A besieged President, anxious to survive, can do crazy things
which his crazy enemies happen to believe are good ideas. Things like detente with Russia are
set aside as is an effort to achieve normal relations with North Korea. Things like creating
a crisis with Iran or pulling out of a nuclear treaty are either praised or accepted. It all started minus day one of this guys presidency and it just won't stop. Hard to say
how it could end, but the options are pretty
scary.
The authors point is that we have elections to decide who shall be president and the
intoxicated crew in Washington, New York and Hollywood need to accept that.
Eric32 , February 17, 2019 at 9:06 am
This FBI/CIA (plus British intelligence etc.) attempt to destroy and remove an elected
President will end the same way as the bank fraud that damaged the US economy 11 yrs ago.
Nothing real will be done, and the disease will just get deeper and more widespread.
MBeaver , February 17, 2019 at 9:51 pm
I often look at politics like I look at software.
If you have bugs, you fix them quickly before they can hurt your customers too much and they
decide to ditch your software or look for an alternative somewhere else.
Here they are being ignored for decades and decades and many people exploit them, because
they can flourish on them, like a criminal uses bugs in software to circumvent security. Like
parasites. But the vast majority and the system itself is getting damaged by them. People
adapt to them, and become as dishonest as the minority. It gets worse and worse until there
is no way back and ends in a disaster.
Dave , February 17, 2019 at 8:18 am
Are McCabe and others going to face any consequences for their actions? I have some
doubts.
Skip Scott , February 17, 2019 at 7:35 am
"McCabe said that Justice Department officials believed at the time that Trump may have
obstructed justice by firing Comey, and they worried that Trump was somehow under the
influence of the Russian government."
I think what the Intel Agencies were really concerned about was Trump's statement
"wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia." They were worried about detente, not
influence. Trump threatened to remove their number one bogeyman, which would put at risk
trillions of dollars for the MIC. What if he dared to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction
treaty? What if he dared to share intelligence regarding terrorists with Russia, as Obama
attempted before he was brought to heel? Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and
Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd" continues to ensure that Trump toes the line. The intel
agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the REAL
power.
("Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd"
continues to ensure that Trump toes the line.")
I quite agree, and with your comment in mind I'd say that one could quite rationally argue
that in fact a deep state coup "has actually taken place" and was in fact quite successful.
Trump will most certainly "not" be normalizing relations with Russia if he wants to remain
president. This is the power of the deep state carried out through relentless MSM propaganda,
evidence and "reality" be damned.
In such a world "voting" and "democracy" are simply fairy tales "told by an idiot, full of
sound and fury and signifying nothing." They exist only as meaningless abstractions used to
help insure we the populace remain compliant and don't take to the streets like the Yellow
Vests in France. Which of course is our only chance whatsoever to in any meaningfully way
impact this completely corrupt uber-violent corporate-feudal paradise we find ourselves now
inhabiting.
"The intel agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the
REAL power." – spot on!
jadez , February 17, 2019 at 6:46 am
MAYBE MR John Kiriakou should familiarize himself with the Constitution..and the 25th
amendment which he acknowledges was to be used to "oust"..a sitting president.
i do not disagree or challenge his integrity regarding the actions of the agencies he
writes about yet at the same time to dismiss out of hand a constitutional avenue of removing
a president for say BEING an actual agent of a foreign government can not be dismissed based
strictly on the idea that presidents "come and go"!
Abby , February 18, 2019 at 12:29 am
I'm pretty sure that Kiriakou knows all about the constitution and the 25th amendment. The
problem that he's discussing here is that if a president is unfit to continue his presidency
then it's up to his cabinet and congress to remove him, not the intelligence agency's
job.
Where was the proof that Trump was being an actual agent of a foreign government? There
was none at the time of this attempted coup and so far Mueller hasn't shown any. Manafort is
guilty of breaking tax laws, not anything to do with collusion with people in Russia. Nor has
he shown that anyone else was or is either. And do you honestly think that if a president was
working with a foreign government that congress would just sit patiently by as Mueller
dragged his feet for two years looking into that? I think not.
Seby , February 17, 2019 at 5:02 am
Excellent in more detailed analysis of this power struggle in the US plutocracy at NEO
recently.
3 Major Divisions in the American Ruling Class by Caleb Maupin.
To precis
Division #1: Saudi Wahabbis vs. The Muslim Brotherhood
Division #2: The Pentagon vs. Intel Agencies
Division #3: The Rich vs. The Ultra-Rich
"... Baker said McCabe was cool, calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time." ..."
"... According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time." ..."
Two Trump Cabinet officials were "ready to support" a DOJ scheme to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump , according
to
Bloomberg and
Fox News , citing closed-door testimony from the FBI's former top lawyer, James Baker - who said that the claim came from Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the
transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book. -
Fox News
While Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials, he says that McCabe and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page approached him to
relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including their discussions of the 25th Amendment scheme. "I was being told by some combination
of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he -- this was what was
related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president's Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it,
an action under the 25th Amendment," Baker told the Congressional committees.
The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of a sitting president from office through various mechanisms - including the majority
of a president's Cabinet agreeing that the commander-in-chief is incapable of performing his duties.
Rosenstein - who is slated to leave the Justice Department in the near future, has denied the claims. Baker said McCabe was cool,
calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably
confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time
because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So
I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time."
McCabe, meanwhile
told "60 Minutes" in an interview set to air Sunday night that Rosenstein was concerned about Trump's "capacity."
According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet
officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity
and about his intent at that point in time."
"Rosenstein was actually openly talking about whether there was a majority of the cabinet who would vote to remove the president?"
asks CBS News anchor Scott Pelly, to which McCabe replied: " That's correct. Counting votes or possible votes. "
The New York Times
first reported
last year that McCabe alleged in memos that Rosenstein had talked about using the 25th Amendment to oust Trump -- or wearing a
wire to surreptitiously monitor the president -- in the hectic days in May 2017 after Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director.
At the time, Rosenstein disputed the reporting. -
WaPo
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the 25th Amendment scheme a "
bureaucratic coup " led by enemies of President Trump. On Sunday morning, Graham said he would subpoena McCabe and Rosenstein
"if that's what it takes" to get to the bottom of the 25th Amendment claim.
On Thursday, the DOJ issued a statement claiming that Rosenstein rejects McCabe's version of events "as inaccurate and factually
incorrect," and also denied that Rosenstein ever approved wearing a "wire" to record Trump.
"The deputy attorney general never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," reads the DOJ statement. "As the deputy
attorney general previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment,
nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."
McCabe, meanwhile, walked back some of his "60 Minutes" statements . On Friday a spokeswoman for the former Deputy Director said:
"Certain statements made by Mr. McCabe, in interviews associated with the release of his book, have been taken out of context and
misrepresented," adding "To clarify, at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th
Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions."
Baker acknowledged during his testimony that he was not directly involved in the May 2017 discussions, rather, McCabe and Page
approached him contemporaneously following a meeting with Rosenstein in the days following former FBI Director James Comey's firing.
"I had the impression that the deputy attorney general had already discussed this with two members in the president's Cabinet
and that they were onboard with this concept already," said Baker.
Question: "Do you know what direction that went? Was it Mr. Rosenstein seeking out members of the Cabinet looking to pursue
this 25th Amendment approach or was it the other way around?"
Baker: "What I recall being said was that the Deputy Attorney General had two members of the Cabinet. So he – how they came
to be had, I don't know, but "
Question: "So he had two members, almost like he was taking the initiative and getting the members?"
Baker: "That would be speculation on my part." -
Via Fox News
Baker also suggested that "Lisa and Andy" did not know the names of the Cabinet officials who were on board with the 25th Amendment
scheme.
Baker testified in October that the alleged discussions took place during an uncertain and anxious time at the FBI and DOJ
after Comey's termination, and that the mood was "pretty dark":
Question: "Did people tell you that the DAG (Deputy Attorney General) was upset?"
Baker: "Yes."
Question: "Did they tell you that he was making jokes?"
Baker: "No."
Question: "Did they tell you that..."
Baker: " This was not a joking sort of time. This was pretty dark. " -
Via Fox News
"Our choice now seems to be between a "new war" and a new world. As always, the forces of reaction and wealth are telling us
we have no choice but war, and no right or power to decide. They are calling for a secret investigation, a secret conviction,
a secret method of execution, and a totally secret war abroad.
"The American people as a whole are the only ones in the world who have the right to decide on a national response to this
tragedy, and it must be one that takes into account the rights of all the other peoples and nations of the world."
The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
inverted totalitarianism
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
In neoliberal MSM there is positive feedback loop for "Trump is a Russian agent" stories. So the meme feeds on itself.
Notable quotes:
"... And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence agencies. ..."
"... the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience. ..."
"... Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors, and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's not that much different from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years ..."
"... Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water ..."
"... Now they're skipping the middle man and killing them directly by psychologically brutalizing them so aggressively that it ruins their health, all to ensure that Democrats support war and adore the U.S. intelligence community . ..."
"... The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting U.S. government institutions. ..."
"... The ability of those in power to manipulate the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an inverted totalitarianism which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered by the interests of the common man. ..."
The always excellent Moon of Alabama blog has just
published a sarcasm-laden piece documenting the many, many aggressive maneuvers that this administration has made against the
interests of Russia, from pushing for more NATO funding to undermining Russia's natural gas interests to bombing Syria to sanctioning
Russian oligarchs to dangerous military posturing.
<picture deleted>
And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working
to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand
for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence
agencies.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, there would be a lot less "Putin's puppet" talk and a lot more "Hey,
maybe we should avoid senseless escalations which could end all life on earth" talk among news media consumers. But there isn't,
because the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives
are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience.
Like His Predecessors
Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors,
and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's
not that much different
from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump
hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, people would be no more worried about this administration than they
were about the previous ones, because when it comes to his administration's actual behavior, he's just as reliable an upholder of
the establishment-friendly status quo as his predecessors.
Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating
government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't
even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water.
They do this for a reason, of course. The Yellow Vests protests in France have continued unabated for their
ninth consecutive week , a decentralized populist uprising resulting from ordinary French citizens losing trust in their institutions
and the official narratives which uphold them.
The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France
closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting
U.S. government institutions. Right now they've got Republicans cheering on the White House and Democrats cheering on the U.S.
intelligence community, but that could all change should something happen which causes them to lose control over the thoughts that
Americans think about their rulers.
Propaganda is the single most-overlooked and under-appreciated aspect of human society. The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
inverted totalitarianism
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
The only thing that will lead to real change is the people losing trust in corrupt institutions and
rising like lions against them. That gets increasingly likely as those
institutions lose control of the narrative, and with trust in the mass media at an all-time low, populist uprisings restoring power
to the people in France, and media corporations
acting increasingly weird and insecure , that looks more and more likely by the day.
"... This is the behavior of a media class that is interested in selling narratives, not reporting truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today that we must continue to trust them. ..."
"... More accountability in media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people whose minds you are paid exorbitant sums to influence; there are no public elections for the leadership of the mass media. ..."
"... CNN, for the record, has been guilty of an arguably even more embarrassing Russiagate flub than Buzzfeed 's when they wrongly reported that Donald Trump Jr had had access to WikiLeaks' DNC email archives prior to their 2016 publication, an error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an email date by multiple people ..."
"... The mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely deserves to be distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned that distrust already with its constant promotion of imperialist wars and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even more with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture consent for a preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage. ..."
"... The mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because Trump says it doesn't mean it's not true. The only reason people don't rise up and use the power of their numbers to force the much-needed changes that need to happen in our world is because they are being propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass media's endless cultural engineering project . ..."
"... They are the reason why wars go unopposed, why third parties never gain traction, why people consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up from the perverse narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the better. ..."
Following what the Washington Post
has described as "the highest-profile misstep yet for a news organization during a period
of heightened and intense scrutiny of the press," mass media representatives are now flailing
desperately for an argument as to why people should continue to place their trust in mainstream
news outlets.
On Thursday Buzzfeed News delivered
the latest "bombshell" Russiagate report to fizzle within 24 hours of its publication, a
pattern that is now so consistent that I've personally made a practice of declining to comment
on such stories until a day or two after their release. "BOOM!" tweets were issued by
#Resistance pundits on Twitter, "If true this means X, Y and Z" bloviations were made on mass
media punditry panels, and for about 20 hours Russiagaters everywhere were riding the high of
their lives, giddy with the news that President Trump had committed an impeachable felony by
ordering Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a proposed Trump office tower in Moscow, a
proposal which died within weeks
and the Kremlin never touched .
There was reason enough already for any reasonable person to refrain from frenzied
celebration, including the fact that the story's two authors, Jason Leopold and Anthony
Cormier, were giving the press two very different accounts of
the information they'd based it on, with Cormier telling CNN that he had not personally seen
the evidence underlying his report and Leopold telling MSNBC that he had. Both Leopold and
Cormier, for the record, have already previously suffered a
Russiagate faceplant with the clickbait viral story that Russia had financed the 2016
election, burying the fact that it was a Russian election .
Then the entire story came crashing down when Mueller's office took the extremely rare step
of issuing an
unequivocal statement that the Buzzfeed story was wrong , writing simply, "BuzzFeed's
description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of
documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional
testimony are not accurate."
According to journalist and economic analyst Doug Henwood, the print New York Times covered
the Buzzfeed report on its front page when the story broke, but the report on Mueller's
correction the next day was shoved back to page 11 .
This appalling journalistic malpractice makes it very funny that NYT's Wajahat Ali had the gall
to tweet , "Unlike the Trump
administration, journalists are fact checking and willing to correct the record if the Buzzfeed
story is found inaccurate. Not really the actions of a deep state and enemy of the people,
right?"
This is the behavior of a media class that is interested in selling narratives, not
reporting truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today that we must
continue to trust them.
"Those trying to tar all media today aren't interested in improving journalism but
protecting themselves," tweeted NBC's Chuck Todd.
"There's a lot more accountability in media these days than in our politics. We know we
live in a glass house, we hope the folks we cover are as self aware."
More accountability in media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your
advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people whose minds you are paid
exorbitant sums to influence; there are no public elections for the leadership of the mass
media.
"Mueller didn't do the media any favors tonight, and he did do the president one,"
griped
the odious Chris Cuomo on CNN. "Because as you saw with Rudy Giuliani and as I'm sure
you'll see with the president himself, this allows them to say 'You can't believe it! You can't
believe what you read, you can't believe what you hear! You can only believe us. Even the
Special Counsel says that the media doesn't get it right.'"
"The larger message that a lot of people are going to take from this story is that the
news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they're
willing to lie to do it, and I don't think that's true" said Jeffrey Toobin on a CNN panel , adding "I
just think this is a bad day for us."
"It does reinforce bad stereotypes about the news media," said Brian Stelter on the same CNN
panel.
"I am desperate as a media reporter to always say to the audience, judge folks
individually and judge brands individually. Don't fall for what these politicians out there
want you to do. They want you to think we're all crooked. We're not. But Buzzfeed now, now
the onus is on Buzzfeed. "
CNN, for the record, has been guilty of an arguably
even more embarrassing Russiagate flub than Buzzfeed 's when they wrongly reported that
Donald Trump Jr had had access to WikiLeaks' DNC email archives prior to their 2016
publication, an error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an email date by
multiple people.
The mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely deserves to be
distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned that distrust already with its constant
promotion of imperialist wars and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even
more with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture consent for a
preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage.
The mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because Trump says it
doesn't mean it's not true. The only reason people don't rise up and use the power of their
numbers to force the much-needed changes that need to happen in our world is because they are
being propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass media's endless
cultural engineering project .
They are the reason why wars go unopposed, why third parties
never gain traction, why people consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the
wealthy while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up from the perverse
narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the better.
"... Maté explains why he thinks this narrative ultimately aligns with the longstanding interests of U.S. establishment power. He calls it a "privilege protection racket" that thrives on distraction and misdirection, turning the public away from a real critique of the rise of Trumpism that would otherwise implicate the neoliberal policies of democrats and conservatives alike, foreign policy think tanks, and the media. ..."
Aaron is gong to break down "Russiagate," taking a sober look at the media frenzy of
"bombshell" stories asserting a Russian conspiracy behind the 2016 election.
Maté explains why he thinks this narrative ultimately aligns with the
longstanding interests of U.S. establishment power. He calls it a "privilege protection racket"
that thrives on distraction and misdirection, turning the public away from a real critique of
the rise of Trumpism that would otherwise implicate the neoliberal policies of democrats and
conservatives alike, foreign policy think tanks, and the media.
And in a prior NBC News article Tuesday morning, Dilanian
spelled out :
After two years and 200 interviews , the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the
end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a
conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia , according to both Democrats and
Republicans on the committee.
MSNBC anchor Hallie Jackson and her guest panelists' faces looked visibly confused and
uncomfortable as they learned the Senate report is going in the opposite direction of
everything MSNBC and other mainstream outlets have been breathlessly reporting on a near 24/7
basis.
More importantly, if this is a precursor of what the Mueller report concludes in a few
weeks/months, the TV station that built its current reputation on the premise of Russian
collusion, may have no option but to go on indefinite hiatus.
Watch the segment below, with host Hallie Jackson appearing to grow exasperated by the
2:20 mark : "If and when the president, as he may inevitably do, points to these
conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee found I am not guilty of
conspiracy... he would be correct in saying that? "
Dilanian noted that while the Republican chair of the committee made what he characterized
as "partisan" comments the week prior, it turned out be unanimous fact. "What I found," he
said, "is that Democrats don't dispute that characterization ."
But perhaps sensing how "contrary" to the network's own hysterical 'Russiagate' coverage his
reporting was, he tried to soften the blow, saying, "But, again, no direct proof of a
conspiracy. As one democratic aide said to me, 'we never thought we were going to find a
Democrat between Trump and Vladimir Putin saying let's collude, but the question is how do we
interpret all these various contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.'"
Hallie Jackson followed with further probing: "Not to put too fine a point on it, but I want
to make sure I'm understanding this..." and asked "If and when the president, as he may
inevitably do, points to these conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee
found I'm not guilty of conspiracy... he would be correct in saying that? "
Her face looking rather incredulous at this point, Dilanian responded by invoking the
Mueller investigation, reassuring her his inquiry is not complete and likely could uncover more
information. But then the bottom line: "That said, Trump will claim vindication through this,
and he'll be partially right," he said. But Dilanian also noted the Senate intel committee has
access to classified material, which means "if there was an intercept between officers
suggesting they were conspiring with the Trump campaign, [the committee] would see that. And
that has not emerged."
"So that evidence does not exist, and Trump will claim vindication," he repeated.
Yet after all this, during the full segment Vice News guest panelist Shawna Thomas actually
invoked impeachment in what appeared a desperate attempt to grasp for anything . "There's two
things I question about [the report]," she began.
"Number one, if and when the report finally comes out from the Senate intelligence
committee, is there anything in there that will cause, especially some of these new House Dems,
to start to clamor, even if there isn't 'conspiracy' or 'collusion', for impeachment?" said
Thomas.
But then she tried to deflate the whole thing, upsetting as it was for purveyors of the
collusion narrative: "The other thing is, based on what Ken is saying, it's all stuff we knew
already," she said.
Right... cause in MSNBC's Russiagate-land "the walls are closing in" on Trump, constantly.
Except the network just woke up to the reality that it's not the case.
We only wonder what Rachel Maddow will be left with after this.
From comments: "Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document
breaks down once you focus on individual claims. " What?!?
Notable quotes:
"... FBI and CIA sources told a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter that they didn't believe a key claim contained in the "Steele Dossier ..."
"... The Post 's Greg Miller told an audience at an October event that the FBI and CIA did not believe that former longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen visited Prague during the 2016 election to pay off Russia-linked hackers who stole emails from key Democrats, reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross. ..."
"... Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document breaks down once you focus on individual claims. ..."
"... Steele, using Kremlin sources, claimed in his dossier that Cohen and three associates went to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials for the purpose of discussing "deniable cash payments" made in secret so as to cover up "Moscow's secret liaison with the TRUMP team." ..."
FBI and CIA sources told a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter that they didn't believe a key claim contained in the
"Steele Dossier," the document the Obama FBI relied on to obtain a surveillance warrant on a member of the Trump campaign.
The Post 's Greg Miller told an audience at an October event that the FBI and CIA did not believe that former longtime Trump
attorney Michael Cohen visited Prague during the 2016 election to pay off Russia-linked hackers who stole emails from key Democrats,
reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
"We've talked to sources at the FBI and the CIA and elsewhere -- they don't believe that ever happened," said Miller during the
October event which aired Saturday on C-SPAN.
We literally spent weeks and months trying to run down... there's an assertion in there that Michael Cohen went to Prague to
settle payments that were needed at the end of the campaign. We sent reporters to every hotel in Prague, to all over the place
trying to - just to try to figure out if he was ever there, and came away empty . -Greg Miller
Ross notes that WaPo somehow failed to report this information, nor did Miller include this tidbit of narrative-killing information
in his recent book, "The Apprentice: Trump, Russia, and the Subversion of American Democracy."
Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document breaks down
once you focus on individual claims.
Steele, using Kremlin sources, claimed in his dossier that Cohen and three associates went to Prague in August 2016 to meet
with Kremlin officials for the purpose of discussing "deniable cash payments" made in secret so as to cover up "Moscow's secret liaison
with the TRUMP team."
Cohen's alleged Prague visit captured attention largely because the former Trump fixer has vehemently denied it, and also
because it would seem to be one of the easier claims in Steele's 35-page report to validate or invalidate.
Debate over the salacious document was reignited when
McClatchy reported April 15 that
special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence Cohen visited Prague. No other news outlets have verified the reporting, and Cohen
denied it at the time.
Cohen last denied the dossier's allegations in late June, a period of time when he was gearing up to cooperate with prosecutors
against President Donald Trump . Cohen served as a cooperating witness for prosecutors in both New York and the special counsel's
office. - Daily Caller
Cohen's attorney and longtime Clinton pal Lanny Davis vehemently denied on August 22, one day after Cohen pleaded guilty in his
New York case - that Cohen had never been to Prague, telling Bloomberg " Thirteen references to Mr. Cohen are false in the dossier,
but he has never been to Prague in his life ."
Trump never ceases to crack me up. While his (terrible) current lawyer, declares on TV that there was collusion but it just
didn't last long, Trump calls his former lawyer/fixer at "Rat".
This is just too funny, I mean this is the President of the United States calling his former personal lawyer a "Rat" which
of course is a common mob term for a witness testifying against you.
monkeyshine
Of course it never happened, just like Manafort didn't make 3 trips to London to meet Julian Assange. These fictions were just
used as a pretext for diving into the backgrounds of Trump's political supporters and find crimes to charge them with.
The Cohen raid was particularly egregious, a likely violation of attorney-client privilege. Not suprisingly the American Bar Association
is silent.
brewing_it
So here is a WaPo reporter saying they sent reporters to every hotel in Prague to find out if Cohen had been there, they spent
weeks and weeks researching, interviewing, and nothing. What they are not saying is that they also spent shitloads of Bezo's money
exploring all the other fake dossier claims.
And nothing.....all you hillarytards have been completely scammed by, your pulses sent aflutter with clickbait and page views
and thats it. So sorry you losers.
Demologos
Yeah, like rubles are worth anything outside of Russia. Gold on the other hand ...
But seriously, you two should get a room. If you can't see the conspiracy in the Strzok/Page texts, the setup of Papadapoulous
by the Brits, the phony FISA warrant using the FBI informant, the setup of General Flynn, and the seedy cast of characters in
the DOJ breaking laws right and left, you should be checked for brain wave activity. You probably think the Russians paid for
all of the above too. Go suck a bag of Russian dicks.
BuzzFeed Throws Hail Mary: Publishes New Trump Tower Moscow Docs
After last week's embarrassing debacle in which special counsel Robert Mueller issued a rare statement
calling bullshit on BuzzFeed over their Trump Tower Moscow report that Trump ordered his attorney Michael Cohen to lie about
the timeline, the beleaguered news outlet has taken a
second bite at the
apple with a new report (oddly written by a completely different journalist) refuting comments by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani
that "no plans were ever made" for the project.
Not so fast Rudy ...
In their new report, BuzzFeed claims that the Trump Tower Moscow idea was "led by Trump's then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, and his
associate Felix Sater" despite
writing in November that Sater both thought of and spearheaded the idea , turning to Cohen to "get it off the ground" while overpromising
that he could seal the deal through his Russian connections that never panned out.
Sater, a brash real estate promoter who pleaded guilty to racketeering in 1998 and became a
longtime
asset to US law enforcement and intelligence agencies, had worked with the Trump Organization on deals in the past and said
he came up with the idea. Cohen, Sater recalled, said, "Great idea." -
BuzzFeed
Today's "gotcha," however is that the project had progressed much further than Giuliani claimed on Monday when he told the New
Yorker "no plans were ever made. There were no drafts. Nothing in the file."
Not true , writes BuzzFeed' s Azeen Ghorayshi.
The president and his representatives have dismissed the project as little more than a notion -- a rough plan led by Trump's
then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, and his associate Felix Sater, of which Trump and his family said they were only loosely aware as
the election campaign gathered pace.
On Monday, his lawyer,
Rudy Giuliani ,
said "the proposal was in the earliest stage," and he went on to tell the
New Yorker that "no plans were ever made. There were no drafts. Nothing in the file."
However, hundreds of pages of business documents, emails, text messages, and architectural plans, obtained by BuzzFeed News
over a year of reporting, tell a very different story. Trump Tower Moscow was a richly imagined vision of upscale splendor on
the banks of the Moscow River. -
BuzzFeed
Trump Tower Moscow hasn't exactly been a secret, admits BuzzFeed , noting that Donald Trump tweeted about it following the 2013
Miss Universe pageant, and writing in his book The Art of the Deal that he had been trying to expand his business empire into Russia
for over 30 years.
Over the last week, Giuliani admitted to the New York Times that the Trump Tower Moscow discussions were "going on from the day
I announced to the day I won," Giuliani quoted Trump as saying. He then
walked back those comments , claiming in a statement: "My recent statements about discussions during the 2016 campaign between
Michael Cohen and then-candidate Donald Trump about a potential Trump Moscow 'project' were hypothetical and not based on conversations
I had with the President."
In other words, Giuliani is a walking gaffe machine - which we already knew.
That said, the Trump Tower moscow project appears to have been much more developed than anyone in the Trump camp has acknowledged.
According to a finalized letter of intent signed by Donald Trump on Oct. 28, 2015, the tower would have "approximately 250
first class, luxury residential condominiums."
It would be located in Moscow City, a former industrial complex outside of the city center that has since been converted into
an ambitious commercial district clustered with several of the tallest skyscrapers in Europe.
Its hotel portion would feature "approximately 15 floors" and contain "not fewer than 150 hotel rooms," the letter of intent
stated. The building would feature a luxury spa and fitness center, a commercial component "consistent with the overall luxury
level of the Property," and an office space "consistent with Class A luxury office properties," as well as "luxury" parking. -
BuzzFeed
Also in the plan was "The Spa By Ivanka Trump," as well as a $50 million penthouse suite that they would give to Russian President
Vladimir Putin. "My idea was to give a $50 million penthouse to Putin and charge $250 million more for the rest of the units," Sater
told BuzzFeed in November. "All the oligarchs would line up to live in the same building as Putin."
Show Trump the money
The Trump Organization stood to make $4 million on an up-front payment for the deal; 25% of which would be paid upon execution
of the licensing agreement, another quarter when they finalized a location, and the other half a week before the project's groundbreaking
- or two years after the execution of the licensing agreement, whichever came first.
From there on out, Trump's company would also get a cut of all the condominium sales at the tower, the agreement stated. From
the total selling price of each unit, his company would get 5% for sales up to $100 million, 4% for the next bracket up to $250
million, 3% for anything between that and $500 million, 2% for anything up to $1 billion, and thereafter, a solid cut of 1%. For
commercial and office spaces, it would get a 3% cut of all the rent. It'd get another 3% of sales on food and beverages, spa and
fitness center use, and conference fees.
The deal also stipulated how much Trump's management company would get paid for running operations at Trump Tower Moscow over
25 years. For the first five years, it would get 3% of all revenue generated by operating the hotel per month. Over the next two
decades, it'd receive a flat 4%. In addition, the management company would also receive a monthly "incentive fee" -- an additional
20% of the gross operating profit for the hotel -- subject to annual negotiations. -
BuzzFeed
At the end of the day, Trump Tower Moscow has never happened - and Trump himself has turned out to be the worst "Putin Puppet"
ever after slapping heavy sanctions on Moscow and selling Ukraine weapons that the Obama administration wouldn't.
"Let's make this happen and build a Trump Moscow," wrote Sater to Cohen in October of 2015. "And possibly fix relations between
the countries by showing everyone that commerce & business are much better and more practical than politics. Help world peace and
make a lot of money, I would say that's a great lifetime goal for us to go after."
STOP THE ******* PRESSES..........BOMB SHELL......BOMB SHELL REPORT...THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN....ORANGE HAIR PRESIDENT SOON
TO BE WARING ORANGE JUMPSUIT....
Dateline Moscow 2013........
The crime:
American Developer explores possibilities of building a hotel in Moscow.
The media won't understand talking to Russians to build in Russia and not talking to George Soros first is NOT a crime. Just
because that's what THEY do concerning everything doesn't mean Trump has to also.
zzzzzzzzzz, but the ****-0-craps will be all rage and fury over some sort of fantasy land egotistical it'll never happen building
in Moscow. Pretty pictures, though.
And to the idiot poster who keeps claiming this is 'bribery', that means 1) there would have to be something to be given in
return that was unlawful on some level, and 2) there was intent, and 3) a discussion about the nature and quality of the bribe
actually took place between the bribor and bribee.
I get the uniparty thing, but some of the leftie dickheads that post here are really stupid. Colossally dumb.
Somebody said below we get nothing but bolshevik-speak from these marxists. They open the mouth and voila! a 'fact' is born.
And on that basis a conviction. Matters not if the 'fact' disappears someday, so long as today the 'fact' gives them the
pretense to destroy someone that gets in their way.
The 60's hippies 'left' was all down on the 'man'. 'I just want to be freeeeeeee man' they would say.
ha, such bulls-. The truth is they are all lining up at the govt trough to get their piece of the action. It doesn't matter
that they f- people over, destroy lives, and freedom for all, so long as they get a juicy title, paycheck and pension.
Pure, 100% commie bulls-.
These people need to put on a red shirt and a bulls' eye, have a war against them declared, and then they can be mowed down
one at a time until they run away from govt and never return, or they are all gone.
We are no doubt headed for all out neo-USSA communism. Better make sure you keep your guns!
And when (not if) the ****-0-craps have total power, the first thing they'll do is make it impossible to get a gun, and then
find a means to confiscate them. Before any tyranny we always see the new tyrant go after the guns. Then when the ppl are unarmed,
they move in for the kill - literally.
The commie jackass 'leaders' always talk about this it's for the children, safety, etc. But we all know that is a farce. The
real purpose is to disarm. Culturally, they have made us all capitulate to deviancy, where nobody dares question the immoral homosexual
behavioral choice. That is the kind of world we live in. Next stop, pedoland. "Don't judge me bro'".
Given that we now know (if we did not know already) that at LEAST 65% of the population is completely dependent on the government,
we live in a land where there are ultimate sheep, demented immoral sheep, government dependent and not productive sheep. We are
surrounded by people who are totally brainwashed, are easily swept up with the latest new world order dogma, and won't fight back
against anything, but accept everything, and do as they are told - for a morsel of bread.
Not sure what the solution is, but if you are a person with a moral compass in fairly good working order, and don't want your
pocket picked, and your business totally compromised by some bureaucrat. best be looking for one.
The media won't understand talking to Russians to build in Russia and not talking to George Soros first is NOT a crime. Just
because that's what THEY do concerning everything doesn't mean Trump has to also.
zzzzzzzzzz, but the ****-0-craps will be all rage and fury over some sort of fantasy land egotistical it'll never happen building
in Moscow. Pretty pictures, though.
And to the idiot poster who keeps claiming this is 'bribery', that means 1) there would have to be something to be given in
return that was unlawful on some level, and 2) there was intent, and 3) a discussion about the nature and quality of the bribe
actually took place between the bribor and bribee.
I get the uniparty thing, but some of the leftie dickheads that post here are really stupid. Colossally dumb.
Somebody said below we get nothing but bolshevik-speak from these marxists. They open the mouth and voila! a 'fact' is born.
And on that basis a conviction. Matters not if the 'fact' disappears someday, so long as today the 'fact' gives them the
pretense to destroy someone that gets in their way.
The 60's hippies 'left' was all down on the 'man'. 'I just want to be freeeeeeee man' they would say.
ha, such bulls-. The truth is they are all lining up at the govt trough to get their piece of the action. It doesn't matter
that they f- people over, destroy lives, and freedom for all, so long as they get a juicy title, paycheck and pension.
Pure, 100% commie bulls-.
These people need to put on a red shirt and a bulls' eye, have a war against them declared, and then they can be mowed down
one at a time until they run away from govt and never return, or they are all gone.
We are no doubt headed for all out neo-USSA communism. Better make sure you keep your guns!
And when (not if) the ****-0-craps have total power, the first thing they'll do is make it impossible to get a gun, and then
find a means to confiscate them. Before any tyranny we always see the new tyrant go after the guns. Then when the ppl are unarmed,
they move in for the kill - literally.
The commie jackass 'leaders' always talk about this it's for the children, safety, etc. But we all know that is a farce. The
real purpose is to disarm. Culturally, they have made us all capitulate to deviancy, where nobody dares question the immoral homosexual
behavioral choice. That is the kind of world we live in. Next stop, pedoland. "Don't judge me bro'".
Given that we now know (if we did not know already) that at LEAST 65% of the population is completely dependent on the government,
we live in a land where there are ultimate sheep, demented immoral sheep, government dependent and not productive sheep. We are
surrounded by people who are totally brainwashed, are easily swept up with the latest new world order dogma, and won't fight back
against anything, but accept everything, and do as they are told - for a morsel of bread.
Not sure what the solution is, but if you are a person with a moral compass in fairly good working order, and don't want your
pocket picked, and your business totally compromised by some bureaucrat. best be looking for one.
The media won't understand talking to Russians to build in Russia and not talking to George Soros first is NOT a crime. Just
because that's what THEY do concerning everything doesn't mean Trump has to also.
zzzzzzzzzz, but the ****-0-craps will be all rage and fury over some sort of fantasy land egotistical it'll never happen building
in Moscow. Pretty pictures, though.
And to the idiot poster who keeps claiming this is 'bribery', that means 1) there would have to be something to be given in
return that was unlawful on some level, and 2) there was intent, and 3) a discussion about the nature and quality of the bribe
actually took place between the bribor and bribee.
I get the uniparty thing, but some of the leftie dickheads that post here are really stupid. Colossally dumb.
Somebody said below we get nothing but bolshevik-speak from these marxists. They open the mouth and voila! a 'fact' is born.
And on that basis a conviction. Matters not if the 'fact' disappears someday, so long as today the 'fact' gives them the
pretense to destroy someone that gets in their way.
The 60's hippies 'left' was all down on the 'man'. 'I just want to be freeeeeeee man' they would say.
ha, such bulls-. The truth is they are all lining up at the govt trough to get their piece of the action. It doesn't matter
that they f- people over, destroy lives, and freedom for all, so long as they get a juicy title, paycheck and pension.
Pure, 100% commie bulls-.
These people need to put on a red shirt and a bulls' eye, have a war against them declared, and then they can be mowed down
one at a time until they run away from govt and never return, or they are all gone.
We are no doubt headed for all out neo-USSA communism. Better make sure you keep your guns!
And when (not if) the ****-0-craps have total power, the first thing they'll do is make it impossible to get a gun, and then
find a means to confiscate them. Before any tyranny we always see the new tyrant go after the guns. Then when the ppl are unarmed,
they move in for the kill - literally.
The commie jackass 'leaders' always talk about this it's for the children, safety, etc. But we all know that is a farce. The
real purpose is to disarm. Culturally, they have made us all capitulate to deviancy, where nobody dares question the immoral homosexual
behavioral choice. That is the kind of world we live in. Next stop, pedoland. "Don't judge me bro'".
Given that we now know (if we did not know already) that at LEAST 65% of the population is completely dependent on the government,
we live in a land where there are ultimate sheep, demented immoral sheep, government dependent and not productive sheep. We are
surrounded by people who are totally brainwashed, are easily swept up with the latest new world order dogma, and won't fight back
against anything, but accept everything, and do as they are told - for a morsel of bread.
Not sure what the solution is, but if you are a person with a moral compass in fairly good working order, and don't want your
pocket picked, and your business totally compromised by some bureaucrat. best be looking for one.
The media won't understand talking to Russians to build in Russia and not talking to George Soros first is NOT a crime. Just
because that's what THEY do concerning everything doesn't mean Trump has to also.
zzzzzzzzzz, but the ****-0-craps will be all rage and fury over some sort of fantasy land egotistical it'll never happen building
in Moscow. Pretty pictures, though.
And to the idiot poster who keeps claiming this is 'bribery', that means 1) there would have to be something to be given in
return that was unlawful on some level, and 2) there was intent, and 3) a discussion about the nature and quality of the bribe
actually took place between the bribor and bribee.
I get the uniparty thing, but some of the leftie dickheads that post here are really stupid. Colossally dumb.
Somebody said below we get nothing but bolshevik-speak from these marxists. They open the mouth and voila! a 'fact' is born.
And on that basis a conviction. Matters not if the 'fact' disappears someday, so long as today the 'fact' gives them the
pretense to destroy someone that gets in their way.
The 60's hippies 'left' was all down on the 'man'. 'I just want to be freeeeeeee man' they would say.
ha, such bulls-. The truth is they are all lining up at the govt trough to get their piece of the action. It doesn't matter
that they f- people over, destroy lives, and freedom for all, so long as they get a juicy title, paycheck and pension.
Pure, 100% commie bulls-.
These people need to put on a red shirt and a bulls' eye, have a war against them declared, and then they can be mowed down
one at a time until they run away from govt and never return, or they are all gone.
We are no doubt headed for all out neo-USSA communism. Better make sure you keep your guns!
And when (not if) the ****-0-craps have total power, the first thing they'll do is make it impossible to get a gun, and then
find a means to confiscate them. Before any tyranny we always see the new tyrant go after the guns. Then when the ppl are unarmed,
they move in for the kill - literally.
The commie jackass 'leaders' always talk about this it's for the children, safety, etc. But we all know that is a farce. The
real purpose is to disarm. Culturally, they have made us all capitulate to deviancy, where nobody dares question the immoral homosexual
behavioral choice. That is the kind of world we live in. Next stop, pedoland. "Don't judge me bro'".
Given that we now know (if we did not know already) that at LEAST 65% of the population is completely dependent on the government,
we live in a land where there are ultimate sheep, demented immoral sheep, government dependent and not productive sheep. We are
surrounded by people who are totally brainwashed, are easily swept up with the latest new world order dogma, and won't fight back
against anything, but accept everything, and do as they are told - for a morsel of bread.
Not sure what the solution is, but if you are a person with a moral compass in fairly good working order, and don't want your
pocket picked, and your business totally compromised by some bureaucrat. best be looking for one.
Justin Case
Keep shoveling that Russia this, that, manure narrative for general consumption. What sanctions? Umm, I'll get back to you
after we extradite the Huawei CEO and extort billions from the corporation for doing business with our (Israel's) adversary.
You voted for this? He talks out of both sides of his mouth. Why do people vote to have someone rule over them?
Among few good things that Trump have done to the USA is that he destoryed credibility of
neoliberal MSM. They all are now firmly belong to the "fake news" catagory.
Notable quotes:
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
So the corporate media have gone and done it again. As they have, repeatedly, for the last
two and half years, they shook the earth with
a "bombshell" story proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Donald Trump colluded with the
Russians to steal the presidency from Hillary Clinton, or at least committed an impeachable
felony in connection with something to do with the Russians, or Ukrainians, or other Slavic
persons which story turned out to be inaccurate, or not entirely accurate, or a bunch of
horseshit.
This time it was BuzzFeed's Jason Leopold, " a
reporter with a checkered past " (i.e., a history of inventing
his sources ) who broke the "bombshell" Russiagate story that turned out to be a bunch of
horseshit. Leopold, and his colleague Anthony Cormier, reported that Trump had directed his
attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about plans to construct a Trump Tower in Moscow,
thus suborning perjury and obstructing justice. Their sources for this "bombshell" story were
allegedly "two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the
matter."
Approximately twenty-four hours later, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office (i.e., the
office "involved in an investigation of the matter") stated that the BuzzFeed story was "not
accurate," which is a legal term meaning "a bunch of horseshit."
BuzzFeed is standing by its story , and is working to determine what, exactly, Mueller's
office meant by "not accurate." Ben Smith, BuzzFeed's Editor-in-Chief, has called on Mueller
"to make clear what he's disputing."
Liberals and other Trump-obsessives have joined in the effort to interpret the Special
Counsel's office's cryptic utterance. French hermeneuticists have been reportedly called in to
deconstruct the meaning of "accurate." Professional Twitter
semioticians are explaining that "not accurate" doesn't mean "wrong," but, rather, refers
to something that is "accurate," but which the user of the word doesn't want to disclose
publicly, or that legal terms don't mean what they mean or something more or less along those
lines.
But Greenwald's list is just a small sample of the Russiagate stories that have turned out
to be horseshit. For the record, here are several more:
"Seventeen intelligence agencies"
confirm Russia interfered in the U.S. elections (
New York Times ) Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum (
The Guardian ) Russia interfered in the German elections ( Reuters )
Russia hacked the French elections ( Politico and numerous other
outlets ) Michael Cohen conspired with the Russians in Prague ( BuzzFeed
)
I am using the terms "horseshit" and "a bunch of horseshit" (as opposed to terms like
"failures" and "errors"), not just to be gratuitously vulgar, but, also, to try to make a
point. One is not supposed to use these terms in connection with "serious," "respected" news
outlets. Which is why journalists like Greenwald and Aaron Maté (who have extensively
reported on the corporate media's ongoing production and dissemination of horseshit) do not use
such terms in the course of their reporting, and instead use less inflammatory terms like
"false," "inaccurate," "mistake," and "error." Principled journalists like Greenwald and
Maté are constrained by (a) their journalistic ethics, (b) their integrity, and (c)
their belief in the idea of a "free and independent press," which is one of the pillars of
Western democracy.
Being neither a respected journalist nor a believer in the existence of an "independent
press," I am under no such constraints. Because I'm not trying to get or keep a job, or
maintain a "respectable" reputation, I'm free to call a spade a spade and a bunch of horseshit
a bunch of horseshit. I am also free to describe "journalists" like Leopold,
Luke Harding ,
Craig Timberg ,
Franklin Foer , and many of their corporate media colleagues (not to mention
TV clowns like Rachel Maddow ) as the liars and rank propagandists they are. I don't need
to pretend their fabricated stories are simply the result of "shoddy journalism," or
"over-reliance on official sources," or any other type of "error" or "failure." These people
know exactly what they are doing, and are being extremely well paid to do it. They went to
school to learn how to do it. Then they butt-sucked and back-stabbed their way up the ladder of
establishment power to be able to do it.
Yes, of course, there are still principled journalists working for the corporate media, but
they are doing so by walking a very fine line. No one has to tell them where it is. Every
professional journalist knows precisely where it is, and what it is there for. Though they are
permitted to walk right up to it, occasionally (to keep them from feeling like abject whores),
one step over it and they will be cast into the Outer Darkness of the Blogosphere and
excommunicated from the Church of Respectable Journalism. If you don't believe me, just ask
Seymour Hersh, or John Pilger, or any other journalistic heretic.
If Russiagate serves no other useful purpose, it is at least exposing the corporate media as
the propaganda factories that they are. Given the amount of obviously fabricated horseshit they
have disseminated during the last two years, you'd have to be a total moron or a diehard
neoliberal cultist not to recognize the function they perform within the global capitalist
ruling establishment (which is essentially no different than the function the establishment
media perform in any other society, namely, to disseminate, maintain, and reify the official
narrative of its ruling classes).
Sadly, there's no shortage of morons and cultists. I don't blame the morons, because well,
they're morons. The cultists are another species entirely. These are people who, no matter how
often the corporate media feed them another "explosive," "bombshell" Russiagate story that
turns out to be a bunch of horseshit, will defend the concept of the "independent media" like
head-shaven, bug-eyed Manson followers. Confront them with facts contradicting their beliefs
and they close their eyes and start chanting and humming and repetitiously babbling banishing
spells. The notion that the Western corporate media may serve the interests of the ruling
establishment (just like the media in every other society serve that society's ruling classes)
is unimaginable and tantamount to heresy.
This fetishization of "the independent press" is a phenomenon unique to Western capitalism.
Basically, it's a childish fairy tale, like believing that Santa Claus is an actual person or
that voting in elections in a corporate oligarchy has anything to do with actual democracy.
Think about it dispassionately for a minute. Why would any ruling establishment permit a
genuinely "independent" press to disseminate ideas and information willy-nilly throughout
society? If it did, it wouldn't last very long.
Most people understand this intuitively, which is why the corporate media relentlessly
repeat the mantra-like phrase, "free and independent press," over, and over, and over again.
Seriously, switch on NPR, or have a look at The Guardian or the Washington Post, or any of the
other corporate media repeatedly reminding you how "independent," "free" and "democratic" they
are. It's essentially Neuro-linguistic programming.
So let's not be shocked when the corporate media continue to bombard us with "bombshell"
stories about Trump and Russia that turn out to be horseshit. Personally, I welcome these
stories. The more corporate media horseshit the better! Who knows, if they dish out enough
blatant horseshit, more people might lose their "trust in the media," and begin to investigate
matters themselves. I know, that makes me a Nazi, right? Or at least a Russian propagandist? I
mean, encouraging folks to distrust the corporate media? Isn't there some kind of law against
that? Or have they not quite gotten around to that yet?
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
The Associated Press (AP) reports the latest bad news for the press: " Just 6 Percent of
People Say They Trust the Media ."
Carole Feldman and Emily Swanson began: Trust in the news media is being eroded by
perceptions of inaccuracy and bias, fueled in part by Americans' skepticism about what they
read on social media. Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the
media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of
other institutions.
Most people understand this intuitively, which is why the corporate media relentlessly
repeat the mantra-like phrase, "free and independent press,"
People inversely brag about their short comings.
Militarized police states brag about their freedom.
A well heeled synchophant brags about his independence.
Dudes with small dicks -- big belt buckle and big hat.
I used to listen to the BBC and NPR until the corporo-globalist bias became unbearable. I
laughed at incidents such as Marketplace mocking the public's concern about GMO's. But it
went off the rails in 2016. They may have backed off from Trump Derangement Syndrome a bit
since then, but I've noticed that they have to call themselves "credible." Maybe if they say
that enough times we'll believe it, eh?
The Greenwald link is pretty important and I bookmarked it. These fake news outlets do
everything in their power to scrub these mistakes from the Google machine once they happen.
They remove stories, videos -- everything, in the hopes of shoving it all down the memory
hole. And since other fake news outlets don't hold them accountable, they get away with it.
This is why it's important to take screen shots of fake news and download videos if possible,
to create a record that's permanent and useful when you need it.
More than 6% of the population are technically, and this is the technical term, retarded
-- they are mentally disabled.
I know it's obvious our media is propaganda, but I don't think it's quite so obvious such
that adults watching Sesame Street who fully enjoy it (nothing wrong with that!) are aware of
it.
I would like to think it's true, but I think the Associated Press article is not true,
after all, can you identify their funding sources?
This fetishization of "the independent press" is a phenomenon unique to Western
capitalism. Basically, it's a childish fairy tale, like believing that Santa Claus is an
actual person or that voting in elections in a corporate oligarchy has anything to do with
actual democracy.
Great article. Articles on this theme should be published daily. The fetish must be
destroyed.
There is at least one other person who calls corporate media what it is, and it ain't
"mainstream."
"Sparkie" ain't gonna be happy about it either."Sparky" chewed me out good for correcting
the incomparable and always superb Linh Dinh for using the disgusting and inaccurate term,
"mainstream" when referring to coprophilic media. Oh, and speaking of "horseshit" one wag
suggested we call it main steam media, for accuracy as well as for giggles and that's
fine by me.
the corporate media relentlessly repeat the mantra-like phrase, "free and independent
press," over, and over, and over again. Seriously, switch on NPR, or have a look at The
Guardian or the Washington Post, or any of the other corporate media repeatedly reminding
you how "independent," "free" and "democratic" they are. It's essentially Neuro-linguistic
programming.
It's blatantly obvious that the same can be said about the self-legitimizing term,
"mainstream," too, so bless you sir, and to (bleep) with the Sparkies of the world.
Confront them with facts contradicting their beliefs and they close their eyes and start
chanting and humming and repetitiously babbling banishing spells.
Not only is Hopkins correct, but what he says about corporate media is not new. The Civil
Rights movement presented by the media was false. The media promotion of the US re-engaging
in Europe in the post WW1 period so we could defend dear ole England and sacred democracy.
The media preparing us for our need to fight WW1 so we could end all wars was false. The
media stirring us to go into Cuba and end the awfully evil Spanish Empire so we could start
the process of ending all empires
N o doubt it is a pleasure for you because C.J. Hopkins managed to scribble 1500
words about fake news without even once mentioning the CIA.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public
believes is false."
-- CIA Director, William Casey
Of course, our resident Bumpkin of Unz would have you believe that the CIA is a
corporation.
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
-- former CIA Director William Colby
So you see Sheete, the term "corporate media" is entirely inaccurate -- a red herring, a
misleading label, a pig in a poke -- because it entirely excludes, avoids, overlooks, and
completely dismisses the role of our intelligence agencies in creating fake news ,
a.k.a. disinformation and propaganda.
The notion that the Western corporate media may serve the interests of the ruling
establishment (just like the media in every other society serve that society's ruling
classes) is unimaginable and tantamount to heresy.
This comes close to the term "regime media," which I like as a replacement for the
clunky-but-common terms "Mainstream Media" or MSM. "
Hopkins uses "corporate media," which appears fifteen times here including in the
title.
Several commenters have noted the problems with the term "mainstream media":
While better than "mainstream media," I'm not sure "corporate media" is sufficient.
"Corporate media," as a term, may wrongly convey the notion that the 'media' in question
complaisantly both [1] broadcasts the ruling ideology (interventionist capitalist
liberal democracy and multicultacracy) and [2] 'megaphones' (Steve Sailer's useful term)
against enemies thereto, coordinating our regular Two-Minute Hates.
That characterization misses an important point, to wit:
The 'media' (in the sense of the "MSM") as we know it today, is itself consciously
part of the ruling apparatus . Not complaisantly, but actively; not lackeys on the
side, but right at the regime's core. A useful distinction. Hence "regime media."
Jun. 14, 2012 These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
That's consolidated from *50* companies back in 1983. But the fact that a few companies
own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says.
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic
surveillance, and opening of mail.
Lippmann-Dewey debate, which is known to academics but not the general public in the
United States, the home country of both authors. Obviously, John Dewey is famous as one
of the most important American philosophers, and for his international influence in the
field of education. By contrast, Walter Lippmann has been somewhat forgotten, though he
was a major journalist in the 1920s and 1930s. He was a widely familiar author at the
time, and wrote some cynical things about American democracy. The story America tells
itself politically is that since we're a democracy in which the citizens rule themselves,
there is a paramount need for an excellent public education so that the citizens can vote
wisely. We ourselves are the leaders. But of course it doesn't work that way in practice.
We actually have a surplus of ignorant and uninformed people who pay no attention to the
nuances of policy, and who vote based on the workings of demagoguery and short-sighted
self-interest. Any number of foolish decisions have been made by the American public.
This leads Lippmann to take the somewhat cynical line that America is destined to be
ruled by technocrats. We need experts to run things; the people are too clueless to rule
themselves. We'll pretend we have a democracy, but we actually don't. Now, Dewey reads
this, and he is temperamentally more optimistic, and he thinks: 'This is a really
stimulating book, but Lippmann is wrong. He is setting the bar too high for the people.
People were never supposed to be educated in depth about every issue, which is an
impossible demand. Even Lippmann doesn't have the time to master every issue, and he
covers politics for a living. Instead, Dewey says, political issues generate their own
publics in each case. I might care deeply about seven political issues. I might care
about national health insurance, but I don't care about gay marriage, or vice versa. So I
get involved in one debate and not the other. I take the trouble of becoming informed
about issues that interest me.
@Hail
Hail says: "The 'media' (in the sense of the "MSM") as we know it today, is itself
consciously part of the ruling apparatus. Not complaisantly, but actively; not lackeys on
the side, but right at the regime's core ":
Exactly. The MSM is the government [CIA/NSA/ etc. etc.] grinning right at you as
it continually lies , albeit behind a very thin veil of supposed integrity/respectability
that the general public still refuses to see through.
By way of illustration of this "outrageous" assertion of mine, here is part of a video
analysis of the original 5 channel US MSM "live" coverage of the morning of Sept. 11 2001,
which clearly demonstrates that on that morning, all 5 US networks broadcast entirely fake
"live" footage [ i.e. C.G.I. prefabricated imagery] for about 102 minutes :
So you see Sheete, the term "corporate media" is entirely inaccurate
I never claimed it was perfect. I do claim that the term, "mainstream," in this context
is entirely inaccurate and misleading. And you should be nice, as you admonished me,
regarding the author of this article. As for your complaint that he didn't mention the CIA,
may I remind you that he wrote, as you noticed, an article, not an encyclopedia.
Anyway, you have yet to establish that the CIA and our corporate masters are entirely
separate entities. Even a Dumb Sheete such as myself would find it somewhat, if not
entirely, incredible if they were.
But of course too everyone knows by now that Jews, Israel and Mossad did 9/11 all by
their lonesomes, and the CIA and the Air Force had nothing to do with it.
Ahem, you forgot to mention big, coprophilic, media. Please try to practice the
inclusiveness that you preach.
one step over [the line] and they will be cast into the Outer Darkness of the
Blogosphere and excommunicated from the Church of Respectable Journalism. If you don't
believe me, just ask Seymour Hersh, or John Pilger, or any other journalistic
heretic.
To this list I might also add CBS' Sharyl Attkisson, and Larry Conners of KMOV-TV, who
had the big brass balls to question the $85 million the Obamas spent on vacations.
NR kicked Derb to the curb, but that gutter's littered with Internet flotsam who
presumed integrity.
@Sean
Sean says: "Lippmann-Dewey debate, which is known to academics but not the general
public in the United States, the home country of both authors. "
Debate summary: 2 know-it-alls debating about how "best" to run everybody else's lives
[and with straight faces, I've no doubt].
Two sides of the same [pro-statist] coin, in other words. Oh, and one minor issue one
"thinks" that a ruling technocracy is "the answer".
Sean says: "Obviously, John Dewey is famous as one of the most important American
philosophers, and for his international influence in the field of education."
You mean: Dewey was important in the field of "public education" , otherwise known as
brainwashing.
"... Only the minor Russian RT channel provides, up-to-a-point, some alternative views, defending the American, British and French people's sovereignty, but they can't do much. Paradoxically, RT does not broadcast in Russian and its English-language broadcasts can't be seen in Russia. The rest of the Russian media doesn't differ much from the Western variety. ..."
"... And not only for politics. They want to draw and implement their agenda on all topics disregarding our views. ..."
There is not a single newspaper in the US that supports the views of the US President.
Nobody defended him when he was
accused , brazenly, in-your-face, of being a Russian agent. Nobody supported him when he
called to bring the troops home from Syria. Nobody came to his aid when he mulled parting with
NATO. There are tens of millions of men and women who voted for him, but he has only his
Twitter account at his disposal.
The media
accuses Trump of paying too little attention to Israel's needs. Israel needs US troops in
Syria and in Germany, US jets in Spain and Qatar, US ships in Italy and the Gulf. Israel needs
the US to lead NATO to contain Russia. If Israel needs it, the US should provide,
says Daniel Shapiro, the ex-ambassador. Not a single American newspaper, not a single US
statesman cared to reply that President Trump had been elected by the American people to do
what is needed for them, not for Israel.
The US is not an exception. Millions of French people support the GJ, but not a single
newspaper, not a single TV channel gives them a platform. They are called anti-Semites for they
are revolted by Danny Cohn-Bendit and Bernard-Henri Levi, who are Jewish. They are also called
homophobes because they want to ban same-sex "marriage". They are being attacked by the
bankers' storm-troopers, the Antifa, and no media defends them.
Millions of Brits support Jeremy Corbyn, but all the mainstream media is against him, even
the state-supported BBC, even the Labour Guardian. Corbyn is accused of anti-Semitism, for
Corbyn speaks for the workers and against the bankers. Nobody defends him and there is no
mainstream media to speak for him.
Only the minor Russian RT channel provides, up-to-a-point, some alternative views, defending
the American, British and French people's sovereignty, but they can't do much. Paradoxically,
RT does not broadcast in Russian and its English-language broadcasts can't be seen in Russia.
The rest of the Russian media doesn't differ much from the Western variety.
The mainstream media from Tokyo to Paris to Los Angeles speaks in one voice. All other
opinions had been pushed out of mainstream discussion. It is good that we have the internet and
sites like Unz Review
that allow us to express our views. The problem is with delivery. How can we deliver to the
public? The real mainstream media has so many more views and viewers! For them, hundreds of
thousands or even millions of views are not unusual.
We need our social networks to deliver the ideas and exchange opinions, to inform readers of
our publications, to convince and rally. In over-populated, nuclearized world, with family and
neighbourhood ties torn, there is no substitute for these networks. And Facebook and Twitter
could help us. Google could help us.
Alas, they betrayed us, too. The social networks
And not only for politics. They want to draw and implement their agenda on all topics
disregarding our views.
BuzzFeed's credibility has been seemingly dented by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's recent
dismissal of one of its 'Russiagate' stories. However, it is not the first time its stories on
Russia raised flags or were proven false. The New York-based news outlet has been holding
nothing back over the recent years as it diligently pressed the so-called 'Russiagate'
narrative about a supposed collusion between the US President Donald Trump and Moscow. Its
recent exploits, which claimed Trump told his ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress to
cover up some of his dealings with Russia, however, apparently led it a bit too far, as it
earned a rebuke from the office
of Robert Muller – the man in charge of the investigation into the very same alleged
collusion, among other aspects of perceived Russia's meddling into the 2016 elections.
'After this I don't even know if I can trust Buzzfeed's cat listicles anymore'
https://t.co/b4vyIKJAUL
The news sparked a wave of criticism on
the social media, with many people saying that the news outlet's credibility is now
discredited.
But was it that flawless before?
Buzzfeed was the first to publish the infamous Steele dossier – a report by an MI6
spy-turned-private investigator – which contained unverified allegations that Russia held
information on Trump which it was using to blackmail the US president. It also alleged
sustained and close working contacts between Trump aides and Kremlin representatives.
None of these allegations, which were used by the FBI as a reason for obtaining a spy
warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page, have been proven as of now. Instead, it was
revealed that the report
was based on information fed through people close to Hillary Clinton – Trump's rival at
the 2016 presidential elections.
Meanwhile, some of the reporters, who worked with the dossier, admitted that the
document's claims are "likely false." Christopher Steele himself also revealed
that one of his goals in compiling the report was to provide Clinton with a legal basis to
challenge the 2016 election results.
The publication of the dossier has brought a string of defamation lawsuits not only against
Steele but against BuzzFeed as well. The news media outlet was sued by the owners of a Russian
Alfa Bank and a Russian tech
expert Aleksey Gubarev who
were all mentioned in the infamous dossier. At the same time, Trump's personal lawyer also
filed a
defamation lawsuit against the company for pushing the Steele report.
However, Buzzfeed apparently does hope to get away with it. In case of Gubarev, a US court
already ruled in favor of the
news outlet in December 2018, citing a "fair report privilege." The businessman earlier
scolded the publication as "one of the most reckless and irresponsible moments in modern
journalism."
Steele was the source of another controversial episode in the history of BuzzFeed's attempts
to propagate the 'Russiagate' narrative. In March 2018, it claimed that the FBI was covering
the true causes of the death of a Russian media tycoon in Washington in 2015.
Citing a "secret report " by Steele, it claimed the man was allegedly killed by
associates of a Russian oligarch, who happens to be close to the Kremlin, the news outlet said.
A sheer coincidence, apparently. It also did not bother to give any plausible explanation as to
why the FBI, which did not hesitate to point a finger at Moscow in the past, would hide such
information at all.
Anyway, the whole story was debunked just days later
when the Metropolitan Police said the death of the tycoon was an accident. This fact did not
get much attention in the West, though. Neither did it cool BuzzFeed's ardor in stirring up
anti-Russian hysteria.
The problem is not Russia; the problem is the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. And related legitimization of neoliberal
elite, which now Deep State is trying ot patch with anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present. ..."
Baseless Russiagate allegations continue to risk war with Russia.
Anti-Trump Frenzy Threatens to End Superpower Diplomacy | The Nation
The New Year has brought a torrent of ever-more-frenzied allegations that President Donald Trump has long had a conspiratorial relationship
-- why mince words and call it "collusion"? -- with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin.
Why the frenzy now? Perhaps because Russiagate promoters in high places are concerned that special counsel Robert Mueller will
not produce the hoped-for "bombshell" to end Trump's presidency. Certainly,
New York Times columnist
David Leonhardt seems worried, demanding, "The president must go," his drop line exhorting, "What are we waiting for?" (In some
countries, articles like his, and there are very many, would be read as calling for a coup.) Perhaps to incite Democrats who have
now taken control of House investigative committees. Perhaps simply because Russiagate has become a political-media cult that no
facts, or any lack of evidence, can dissuade or diminish.
And there is no new credible evidence, preposterous claims notwithstanding. One of The New York Times '
own recent "bombshells,"
published on January 12, reported, for example, that in spring 2017, FBI officials "began investigating whether [President Trump]
had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests." None of the three reporters bothered to point out that those "agents
and officials" almost certainly included ones later reprimanded and retired by the FBI itself for their political biases. (As usual,
the Times buried its self-protective disclaimer deep in the story: "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly
in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.")
Whatever the explanation, the heightened frenzy is unmistakable, leading the "news" almost daily in the synergistic print and
cable media outlets that have zealously promoted Russiagate for more than two years, in particular the Times , The Washington
Post , MSNBC, CNN, and their kindred outlets. They have plenty of eager enablers, including the once-distinguished Strobe Talbott,
President Bill Clinton's top adviser on Russia and until recently president of the Brookings Institution.
According to Talbott
, "We already know that the Kremlin helped put Trump into the White House and played him for a sucker . Trump has been colluding
with a hostile Russia throughout his presidency." In fact, we do not "know" any of this. These remain merely widely disseminated
suspicions and allegations.
In this cult-like commentary, the "threat" of "a hostile Russia" must be inflated along with charges against Trump. (In truth,
Russia represents no threat to the United States that Washington itself did not provoke since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991.)
For its own threat inflation, the Times featured not an expert with any plausible credentials but Lisa Page, the former FBI
lawyer with no known Russia expertise, and who was one of those reprimanded by the agency for anti-Trump political bias. Nonetheless,
the Times quotes Page
at length : "In the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western
alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our ability to spread our democratic ideals."
Perhaps we should have guessed that the democracy-promotion genes of J. Edgar Hoover were still alive and breeding in the FBI, though
for the Times , in its exploitation of the hapless and legally endangered Page, it seems not to matter.
Which brings us, or rather Russiagate zealots, to the heightened "threat" represented by "Putin's Russia." If true, we would expect
the US president to negotiate with the Kremlin leader, including at summit meetings, as every president since Dwight Eisenhower has
done. But, we are told, we cannot trust Trump to do so, because,
according to The Washington Post , he has repeatedly met with Putin alone, with only translators present, and concealed
the records of their private talks, sure signs of "treasonous" behavior, as the Russiagate media first insisted following the Trump-Putin
summit in Helsinki in July 2018.
It's hard to know whether this is historical ignorance or Russiagate malice, though it is probably both. In any event, the truth
is very different. In preparing US-Russian (Soviet and post-Soviet) summits since the 1950s, aides on both sides have arranged "private
time" for their bosses for two essential reasons: so they can develop sufficient personal rapport to sustain any policy partnership
they decide on; and so they can alert one another to constraints on their policy powers at home, to foes of such détente policies
often centered in their respective intelligence agencies. (The KGB ran operations against Nikita Khrushchev's détente policies with
Eisenhower, and, as is well established, US intelligence agencies have run operations against Trump's proclaimed goal of "cooperation
with Russia.")
That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy
of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding
information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo
afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin
leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present.
Nor should we forget the national-security benefits that have come from private meetings between US and Kremlin leaders. In October
1986, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met alone with their translators and an American official who took
notes -- the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished. The result,
in 1987, was the first and still only treaty abolishing an entire category of such weapons, the exceedingly dangerous intermediate-range
ones. (This is the historic treaty Trump has said he may abrogate.)
And yet, congressional zealots are now threatening to subpoena the American translator who was present during Trump's meetings
with Putin. If this recklessness prevails, it will be the end of the nuclear-superpower summit diplomacy that has helped to keep
America and the world safe from catastrophic war for nearly 70 years -- and as a new, more perilous nuclear arms race between the
two countries is unfolding. It will amply confirm a thesis set out in my book
War with Russia? -- that anti-Trump
Russiagate allegations have become the gravest threat to our security.
The following correction and clarification were made to the original version of this article on January 17: Reagan and Gorbachev
met privately with translators during their summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, not February, and Reagan was also accompanied
by an American official who took notes. And it would be more precise to say that the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed
in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of politics and Russian studies at Princeton and NYU and author of the new book
War with Russia? From Putin and
Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate . This commentary is based on the most recent of his weekly discussions of the new US-Russian
Cold War with the host of the John Batchelor radio show. (The podcast is
here . Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com . )
Buzzfeed was once notorious for
traffic-generating "listicles" , but has since become an impressive outlet for deep
investigative journalism under editor-in-chief Ben Smith. That outlet was prominently in the
news this week thanks to its "bombshell" story about President Trump and Michael Cohen: a story
that, like so many others of its kind,
blew up in its face , this time when the typically mute Robert Mueller's office took the
extremely rare step to
label its key claims "inaccurate."
But in homage to BuzzFeed's past viral glory, following are the top ten worst media failures
in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by
the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news,
the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger
they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets
(particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most
embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is
so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end
with (dis)honorable mention status.
Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave
threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media
outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would
expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories.
That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media
clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors"
went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the
same agenda and script:
10. RT Hacked Into and Took Over C-SPAN (Fortune)
On June 12, 2017, Fortune claimed that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and that
C-SPAN "confirmed" it had been hacked. The whole story was false :
9. Russian Hackers Invaded the U.S. Electricity
Grid to Deny Vermonters Heat During the Winter (WashPost)
On December 30, 2016, the Washington Post reported that "Russian hackers penetrated the U.S.
electricity grid through a utility in Vermont," causing predictable outrage and panic, along
with threats from U.S. political leaders. But then they kept diluting the story with editor's
notes – to admit that the malware was found on a laptop not connected to the U.S.
electric grid at all – until finally acknowledging, days later, that the whole story was
false, since the malware had nothing to do with Russia or with the U.S. electric grid:
8. A New, Deranged, Anonymous Group Declares
Mainstream Political Sites on the Left and Right to be Russian Propaganda Outlets and WashPost
Touts its Report to Claim Massive Kremlin Infiltration of the Internet (WashPost)
On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post
published one of the most inflammatory, sensationalistic stories to date about Russian
infiltration into U.S. politics using social media, accusing "more than 200 websites" of being
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of
at least 15 million Americans." It added: "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation
campaign [on Facebook] were viewed more than 213 million times."
Unfortunately for the paper, those statistics were provided by a new, anonymous group that
reached these conclusions by classifying long-time, well-known sites – from the Drudge
Report to Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig,
and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul
Institute. – as "Russian propaganda outlets," producing one of the longest Editor's Note
in memory appended to the top of the article (but
not until two weeks later , long after the story was mindlessly spread all throughout the
media ecosystem):
7. Trump Aide Anthony Scaramucci is Involved in a
Russian Hedge Fund Under Senate Investigation (CNN)
On June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the
Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN retracted the story
and forced the three reporters who published it to leave the network.
6. Russia Attacked
U.S. "Diplomats" (i.e. Spies) at the Cuban Embassy Using a Super-Sophisticated Sonic Microwave
Weapon (NBC/MSNBC/CIA)
On September 11, 2017, NBC News and MSNBC
spread all over its airwaves a claim from its notorious CIA puppet Ken Dilanian that Russia
was behind a series of dastardly attacks on U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Cuba using a sonic
or microwave weapon so sophisticated and cunning that Pentagon and CIA scientists had no idea
what to make of it.
But then teams of neurologists began calling into doubt that these personnel had suffered
any brain injuries at all – that instead they appear to have experienced collective
psychosomatic symptoms – and then biologists published findings that the "strange sounds"
the U.S. "diplomats" reported hearing were identical to those emitted by a common Caribbean
male cricket during mating season.
5. Trump Created a Secret Internet Server to
Covertly Communicate with a Russian Bank (Slate)
4. Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange Three
Times in the Ecuadorian Embassy and Nobody Noticed (Guardian/Luke Harding)
On November 27, 2018, the Guardian
published a major "bombshell" that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had somehow managed
to sneak inside one of the world's most surveilled buildings, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
and visit Julian Assange on three different occasions. Cable and online commentators
exploded.
Seven weeks later,
no other media outlet has confirmed this ; no video or photographic evidence has emerged;
the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into
hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian
official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake:
3. CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its
Source – For a Story Whose Substance Was Also False: Cohen Would Testify that Trump Knew
in Advance About the Trump Tower Meeting (CNN)
On July 27, 2018, CNN
published a blockbuster story : that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell Robert Mueller that
President Trump knew in advanced about the Trump Tower meeting. There were, however, two
problems with this story: first, CNN got caught blatantly lying when its reporters claimed that
"contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment" (in fact, Davis
was one of CNN's key sources, if not its only source, for this story), and second, numerous
other outlets retracted the story after the source, Davis, admitted it was a lie. CNN, however,
to this date has refused to do either:
2. Robert Mueller Possesses Internal Emails and
Witness Interviews Proving Trump Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress (BuzzFeed)
1. Donald Trump Jr. Was Offered Advanced Access to
the WikiLeaks Email Archive (CNN/MSNBC)
The morning of December 9, 2017, launched
one of the most humiliating spectacles in the history of the U.S. media. With a tone so
grave and bombastic that it is impossible to overstate, CNN went on the air and announced a
major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public.
Within an hour, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to
have "independently confirmed" this mammoth, blockbuster scoop, which, they said, would have
been the smoking gun showing collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the hacked
emails (while the YouTube clips have been removed, you can still watch one of the amazing MSNBC
videos
here ).
There was, alas, just one small problem with this massive, blockbuster story: it was totally
and completely false. The email which Trump, Jr. received that directed him to the WikiLeaks
archive was sent after WikiLeaks published it online for the whole world to see, not before.
Rather than some super secretive operative giving Trump, Jr. advanced access, as both CNN and
MSNBC told the public for hours they had confirmed, it was instead just some totally pedestrian
message from a random member of the public suggesting Trump, Jr. review documents the whole
world was already talking about. All of the anonymous sources CNN and MSNBC cited somehow all
got the date of the email wrong.
To date, when asked how they both could have gotten such a massive story so completely wrong
in the same way, both CNN and MSNBC have adopted the posture of the CIA by maintaining complete
silence and refusing to explain how it could possibly be that all of their "multiple,
independent sources" got the date wrong on the email in the same way, to be as incriminating
– and false – as possible. Nor, needless to say, will they identify their sources
who, in concert, fed them such inflammatory and utterly false information.
Sadly, CNN and MSNBC have deleted most traces of the most humiliating videos from the
internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies. But enough survives to document just
what a monumental, horrifying, and utterly inexcusable debacle this was. Particularly amazing
is the clip of the CNN reporter (see below) having to admit the error for the first time, as he
awkwardly struggles to pretend that it's not the massive, horrific debacle that it so obviously
is:
Dishonorable Mention:
ABC News' Brian Ross is fired for
reporting Trump told Flynn to make contact with Russians when he was still a candidate;
in fact, Trump did that after he won.
The New York Times c laimed Manafort provided
polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a person "close to the Kremlin"; in fact, he
provided them to Ukrainians, not Russians.
Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked
Ukrainian artillery apps;
they then retracted it .
Bloomberg and the WSJ reported Mueller subpoenaed Deustche Bank for Trump's financial
records; the NYT said
that never happened .
Rachel Maddow devoted 20 minutes at the start of her show to very melodramatically
claiming a highly sophisticated party tried to trick her by sending her a fake Top Secret
document modeled after the one published by the Intercept, and said it could only have come
from the U.S. Government (or the Intercept) since the person obtained the document before it
was published by us and thus must have had special access to it; in fact,
Maddow and NBC completely misread the metadata on the document ; the fake sent to Maddow
was created after we published the document, and was sent to her by a random member of the
public who took the document from the Intercept's site and doctored it to see if she'd fall
for an obvious scam. Maddow's entire timeline, on which her whole melodramatic conspiracy
theory rested, was fictitious.
The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence
agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally
retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies --
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
AP claimed on February 2, 2018, that the Free Beacon commissioned the Steele Dossier;
they thereafter acknowledged that was false and
noted, instead: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was
initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until
after Democratic groups had begun funding it."
Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered
"sex for favors" were
totally false (and scurrilous).
After a Russian regional jet crashed on February 11, 2018, shortly after it took off from
Moscow, killing all 71 people aboard, Harvard Law Professor and frequent MSNBC contributor
Laurence Tribe
strongly implied Putin purposely caused the plane to go down in order to murder Sergei
Millian, a person vaguely linked to George Papadopoulos and Jared Kushner; in fact, Millian
was not on the plane nor, to date, has anyone claimed they had any evidence that Putin
ordered his own country's civilian passenger jet brought down.
Special mention:
As I've said many times, the U.S. media has become quite adept at expressing extreme
indignation when people criticize them; when politicians conclude that it is advantageous to
turn the U.S. media into their main adversary; and when people turn to "fake news" sites.
If, however, they were willing to devote just a small fraction of that energy to examining
their own conduct, perhaps they would develop the tools necessary to combat those problems
instead of just denouncing their critics and angrily demanding that politicians and news
consumers accord them the respect to which they believe they are entitled.
"... Buzzfeed's CEO should do the honorable thing and commit hari kari like the Japanese do when losing face, then the company should close up shop. ..."
He essentially became a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy is a
Deep State controlled republican. In any case he betrayed his voters in a way that resembles Obama betrayal. One has a
fake slogan "change we can believe in" that other equally fake "Make [middle] America Great Again" (which means restoration
of well-being of middle class and working class in my book, not the continuation of Obama foreign wars, and tax cuts for for
corporations and super rich.
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans
and former Sanders supporters. He might do good and not to try to run in 2020. He definitely is no economic nationalist.
Compare his policies with Tucker Carlson Jan 2, 2019
speech to see the difference. He is
"national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on treaties and
prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties.
And his "fight" with the Deep State resemble so closely to complete and unconditional
surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two.
Most of his appointees would make Hillary proud. That that extends beyond rabid neocons like Haley, Mattis, Bolton and
Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post is without a doubt the most pro-establishment among all large mainstream publications, not only do they defend the narratives of the Deep State but actively attacks anyone who challenges them. ..."
"... Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. ..."
"... It's really sad that people in the public believe this stuff. It's insane and ridiculous. We're living in an Insane Asylum and the ones who should be there for the safety of themselves and others are walking around giving orders to Media and USG, fomenting war and making a mockery of laws and "normal behaviors. ..."
"... They flooded the news with the old Helsinki/Putin stuff to hide the real news. Lisa Page's testimony revealed that John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff was running the Russia investigation from the DOJ end, showing another conflict of Mueller's. Now Mueller is covering for two best friends, Comey and Carlin and he has to frame Trump to save them. ..."
"... The testimony also showed FBI David Bowditch was heavily involved, and Bowditch is now 2nd in command at the FBI and blocking the public release of witness testimony, and one reason for it is it reveals his involvement. ..."
"... It is also now revealed that John Brennan CIA had the dossier before the FBI, and the dossier was likely written by Nellie Ohr, who belonged to a CIA group, and then the dossier was laundered by Steele to look like foreign intelligence to get the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started on Trump. You would think it would be big news that Russians may have had nothing to do with the dossier but the media doesn't see it that way ..."
Washington
Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his
discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a
phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private conversation in
Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I
couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which
only the leaders and their translators were present -- as "a great conversation" that
included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the
president of various countries. I do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed
by Republicans.
"The Washington Post is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump
said.
When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York Times report that the FBI had opened an
inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you ever
worked for Russia, Mr. President?"
"I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think it's
the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former
FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush
or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, & as I have often
said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday
we will have good relations with Russia again!"
rumcho
Jeff Bezos paid $250 million for Washington Post, five years later he gets a government contract with the CIA for $600
million. Are you connecting the dots? You do the numbers. This is how fascism works. Bezos is a crony capitalist joker.
is Trump waiting for Mueller to lay down his cards? Head him off at the pass and arrest Obama, Rice, Jarrett, Lynch, Comey,
Rosenstein and McCabe all on day 1
best defense is a good offense. Make the narrative about Dem sedition not impending House impeachment hearings.
You are President, start acting like it. Make them fear you.
your re-election depends on Mike Obama not being your opponent.
Let it Go
WaPo, again?
The Washington Post is without a doubt the most pro-establishment among all large mainstream publications, not only do
they defend the narratives of the Deep State but actively attacks anyone who challenges them.
Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all
part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. The
article below delves into how WaPo is behind many of the big stories that manipulate America and moves the needle of public
opinion in huge ways.
It's really sad that people in the public believe this stuff. It's insane and ridiculous. We're living in an Insane Asylum
and the ones who should be there for the safety of themselves and others are walking around giving orders to Media and USG,
fomenting war and making a mockery of laws and "normal behaviors.
shadow54
They flooded the news with the old Helsinki/Putin stuff to hide the real news. Lisa Page's testimony revealed that
John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff was running the Russia investigation from the DOJ end, showing another conflict
of Mueller's. Now Mueller is covering for two best friends, Comey and Carlin and he has to frame Trump to save them.
The testimony also showed FBI David Bowditch was heavily involved, and Bowditch is now 2nd in command at the FBI and
blocking the public release of witness testimony, and one reason for it is it reveals his involvement.
It is also now revealed that John Brennan CIA had the dossier before the FBI, and the dossier was likely written by
Nellie Ohr, who belonged to a CIA group, and then the dossier was laundered by Steele to look like foreign intelligence to
get the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started on Trump. You would think it would be big news that Russians may have had
nothing to do with the dossier but the media doesn't see it that way.
Then there is the news that Fusion GPS worked with the Democracy Integrity Project and Knew Knowledge to run a fake Russian
bots campaign against Roy Moore. The Democracy Integrity Project was started by Feinstein's aide and with New Knowledge wrote
a report on Russian bots for the Senate Intelligence Committee. So the Senate Intelligence Committee hired creators of fake
Russian bots to write a report on Russian bots.
On Smerconish's show today, Bob Baer, spy extraordinaire, (read his books) asserted that the
various bits and pieces of circumstantial "evidence" about Trump's contacts with and attitude
toward Russia, as well as those of his flunkies and relatives amount to a "good enough" case
for Trump being a Russian agent of influence.
That is how a HUMINT spook judges such things. It
is a matter of probabilities, not hard evidence.
Assets of an alien government are not always
witting (understanding) of their status from the POV of the foreign government, but that does
not necessarily make other than agents. Sometimes they think they are merely cooperating in a
good and normal way when, in fact, the relationship is much deeper. Jane Fonda in North Vietnam
would be an example.
It seems injudicious, to say the least, for a former CIA guy to float the notion in public
that there is a good enough case, whatever that means, to think the President of the US was
an Russian Agent of Influence based on "bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence." I would
say probably intemperate as well. Using it in the current climate, it ammounts to a slur.
And what exactly are we to make of the spook expression "Agent of Influence?" I would say
that unless one knows a good deal about the proclivites of the very person who is using the
expression and what is going on in his mind, one shouldn't want to make very much of it at
all. The expression comprehends pretty much of everything and anything, for good, for bad,
for indifferent; for behavior that nobody in the whole wide world would find worrisome except
someone in the CIA or the CI Branches of today's FBI. Such concerns come when Agencies have
been politicized.
It's dangerous enough that these people find an internal use for the term. I would speculate
that some such cover set them off on Carter Page and ensuing FISA debacle.
Bought and owned. One can guess that there is much compromising financial and probably other
information on the Clinton Foundation in the missing emails that Russia (and likely every
other intelligence agency on the planet), and from elsewhere, has, given her lack of
comprehension of the basics of security or that classification is not only for the little
people.
In Bob Baer's 1st book He said that he was able to confirm that it was Israel that attacked
the USS Liberty. As a CIA officer he was trying, without success ,to recruit a local
government radio operator.(probably Egyptian) He said that soon after the attack the
prospective recruit came to him and volunteered to cooperate.Surprised at this sudden change
of heart Baer asked what had happened?.He said that he had listened to the entire attack of
the USS Liberty and the communication between the Israeli planes and their command station.
.The recruit said that he now believed that the US and Israel could not be allies because the
US would never permit an ally to get away with attacking a US vessel and murdering American
sailors.
As a student officer at Ft. Holabird I read the transcripts generated by NSA of the chatter
between the Israeli planes and their command. There is not doubt whatever that the attack was
deliberate and sustained for hours. I have written aout this many times. Look in the archive.
https://turcopolier.typepad...
This is the typical level of repression that exist in Police State: any politician who deviates from the "Inner Party" (aka Deep
State) course is branded as Russian spy and "counterintelligence" dogs are send to sniff any dirty clothing that might exist to and
this politician career.
Notable quotes:
"... counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence. ..."
"... "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy." ..."
"... Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze! ..."
President Trump on Saturday lashed out after a Friday evening report in the
New York Times that US
law enforcement officials " became so concerned by the president's behavior " in the days after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director,
that "t hey began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests. "
According to the NYT, agents and senior F.B.I. officials " had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump's ties to Russia during the 2016
campaign " but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed
with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude.
What happened next? Well, a collusion narrative was born and carefully crafted as the paper explains:
The president's activities before and after Mr. Comey's firing in May 2017, particularly
two
instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect
of the inquiry, the people said.
The odd inquiry carried "explosive implications" as counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's
own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working
for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.
The criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials
said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation,
that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.'s counterintelligence division handles national security
matters.
Even so, "...some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening
it ."
Then, in paragraph nine we read " No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction
from Russian government officials. " Or, as The Washington Examiner 's Byron York sums it up:
Some were even more laconic, summarizing the "scoop" as "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy."
Put another way:
Responding to the "bombshell" NYT report - which curiously resurrects the "Russian collusion" narrative right as Trump is set
to test his Presidential authority over the border wall, the president lashed out over Twitter .
Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced
to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired
Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze!"
Funny thing about James Comey. Everybody wanted him fired, Republican and Democrat alike. After the rigged & botched Crooked
Hillary investigation, where she was interviewed on July 4th Weekend, not recorded or sworn in, and where she said she didn't
know anything (a lie), the FBI was in complete turmoil (see N.Y. Post) because of Comey's poor leadership and the way he handled
the Clinton mess (not to mention his usurpation of powers from the Justice Department).
My firing of James Comey was a great day for America. He was a Crooked Cop who is being totally protected by his best friend,
Bob Mueller, & the 13 Angry Democrats - leaking machines who have NO interest in going after the Real Collusion (and much more)
by Crooked Hillary Clinton, her Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee. Just Watch!
I have been FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good
relations with Russia again!
Lyin' James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter S and his lover, agent Lisa Page, & more, all disgraced and/or fired and caught in
the act. These are just some of the losers that tried to do a number on your President. Part of the Witch Hunt. Remember the "insurance
policy?" This is it! -Donald Trump
Update: Comey has responded over Twitter with a pithy FDR quote:
Although we seem to recall that Democrats were Comey's enemy when he reopened Hillary Clinton's email investigation during the
election.
While there is nothing new here confirming Trump was colluding with Russia, as Byron York asks following the article, was the
New York Times story about Trump, or about FBI malfeasance?
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Eric Zuesse December 23, 2019 | History The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea's Breakaway Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented in this article.
Print this article See also
September 17, 2019 Crimea and Kashmir Viewed Through a Western Prism of Hypocrisy
Also by this author Eric Zuesse American writer and investigative historian
Hidden Evidence Regarding Ukrainegate
To the top
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us" src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg"> Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45, have been slowly but steadily moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color) has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate," Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton, there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment aren't conspicuously economic issues. But they are, to a large extent, class issues. They are inside-the-beltway dramas about foreign policy arcana that are important to people who see their lots tied in one way or another to the established order. This includes, by degree, those of us who would like to make room for outside-the-beltway concerns like ending militarism, solving environmental crises, providing meaningful employment for all who want it and creating functioning healthcare and educational systems.
15,514
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The network communication goes through a secondary source.
Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list.
Mr. Sketchy – ICIG Michael Atkinson
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">
This article incorporates
text from this source, which is in the 
20191031-ukrainegate.pdf
by Barbara Boyd, [email protected] - Be the first to be notified when we release
the next parts, text sc20 to (202)609-8371 - text stop to leave at anytime.
Part 2 is now available.
<img
src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/05242018-DUCF-ICIG-DNI.jpg" alt=""
width="850" height="407" data-portal-copyright="The Federalist" />
<img
src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/09242019-DCUG-ICIG-DNI.jpg" alt=""
width="850" height="407" data-portal-copyright="The Federalist" />